Md. Golam Kibria vs Jiaul Hoque & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6805 Cal

21.09.2022
Item No. 07
Court No.6.
    S. De
                              M.A.T. 1480 of 2022
                                       with
                             I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022

                               Md. Golam Kibria.
                                       Vs
                               Jiaul Hoque & Ors.


                    Mr. Supratim Dhar,
                    Mr. Joy Chakraborty,
                    Mr. Sandip Dinda,
                                     ...for the appellant.
                    Mr. Sumit Roy,
                    Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha,
                    Ms. Moumita Mondal,
                                     ...for the respondent no.1.

Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata, ...for the State.

A judgment and order dated September 2, 2022,

whereby W.P.A. No. 19695 of 2022 was disposed of, is

under challenge in this appeal.

The private respondent/writ petitioner

approached the learned Single Judge praying for

cancellation of a notice inviting tender which according

to him, was issued irregularly. It was brought to the

notice of the learned Judge that by a letter dated

August 10, 2022 issued by the concerned Block

Development Officer, the impugned tender notice

already stood cancelled. The learned Judge, therefore,

held that nothing survives for decision in the writ

petition. However, the learned Judge went on to

observe as follows :-

"The Pradhan, Gangaprasad Gram

Panchayat shall act on the basis of the

directions of the Block Development

Officer. The Block Development Officer

shall ensure that the directions in the

letter dated August 10, 2022 bearing

Memo No.2239/K-II are complied with

by the Pradhan, Gangaprasad Gram

Panchayat.

             It is made clear that public

      money      cannot     be    wasted    and

      misutilized.    The villagers should not

      suffer."

Being aggrieved, the Pradhan of the concerned

Gram Panchayat is before us by way of this appeal.

We notice from the order impugned that the

Pradhan being the present appellant, was not

represented before the learned Judge. Learned

advocate for the appellant says that the Pradhan

received a copy of the writ petition on the very day on

which the order impugned was passed. Hence, he

could not make arrangement for being represented

before the learned Judge.

We are not going into the issue of whether or not

the appellant had sufficient cause for not being

represented before the learned Judge on September 2,

2022. If the appellant is of the view that he had

sufficient cause, he may approach the learned Single

Judge with an appropriate application in accordance

with law. If the learned Judge is persuaded that the

appellant had good cause for not being represented on

the day the writ petition was disposed of, the learned

Judge may pass appropriate orders.

We do not interfere with the order under appeal.

Since we have not called for affidavits, the

allegations contained in the stay application are

deemed not to be admitted by the respondents.

MAT 1480 of 2022 is disposed of along with the

application being I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied expeditiously after compliance

with all the necessary formalities.

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)