In Wp(C) 111/2021( vs For
2022 Latest Caselaw 799 Tri

                 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA
                         I.A. 1/2022
                  In WP(C) 111/2021(D/O)
For Applicant(s)       :      Mr. A. Dey Advocate
For Respondent(s)      :      Mr. AK Pal, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 25/08/2022

Heard Mr. A. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-State. Also heard Mr. AK Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- petitioner herein.

This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicants-State, who were the respondents in the original writ petition vide no. WP(C) 111 of 2021, for granting time for implementation of the judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 passed by this court in WP(C) 111 of 2021. Vide order dated 06.04.2022, this court had permitted the State to complete the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner within a period of four months. The applicants by means of this application have submitted that they could not complete the proceeding within the said stipulated period as directed by this court. Today, Mr. A. Dey, learned counsel has filed an application for extension of time to complete the proceeding.

It is found that the petitioner, as directed by this court, had submitted the representation after two months. The original writ petition was disposed of by order dated 06.04.2022, but, he submitted representation on 08.06.2022 and it is the contention of the State that in view of the delayed submission of representation by the petitioner, the completion of the proceeding is delayed. In the light of the above circumstances, I am inclined to extend time for completion of the proceeding initiated against the petitioner.

Accordingly, I direct the State to complete the proceeding within the next two months. It is made clear that if the proceeding is not completed within the said stipulated period, no further time will be extended and it will be dropped automatically.

With the aforesaid direction, the interlocutory application stands disposed.

JUDGE

Saikat