w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Tajmahal Bibi v/s The State of West Bengal & Others

    Writ Petition No. 29833(W) of 2017

    Decided On, 17 January 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRATA TALUKDAR

    For the Appellant: Md. Jalaluddin, Advocate. For the Respondents: Jahar Lal De, Rabiul Islam, Arindam Das, Abdur Rakib, R9 & R10, Biswajit Sarkar, Rumeli Sarkar, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. Party/parties are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause-title.

2. The facts in issue which have been brought to the notice of this Court after filing of the Writ Petition point to a classic example of mala fide action designed to take the parties to this lis literally for a ride.

3. Learned Counsel for the Pri

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

vate Respondent Nos.9 and 10 have produced before this Court a copy of the communication addressed to the Respondent No.4/Block Development Officer (BDO) in issue on behalf of the petitioner by her Learned Advocate purporting to communicate an order dated 12th December, 2017 of this Court in this writ petition.

4. Mr. Arindam Das, learned Counsel for the Private Respondent Nos.9 and 10 as also the State-Respondents represented through Mr. De, learned Senior Government Advocate, submit that no order was passed on the 12th of December, 2017 in the present petition and, the undated communication, as referred to above, appears to be fraudulent.

5. It is further submitted that by the order dated 19th December, 2017 the Prescribed Authority/BDO has in turn intimated the Prodhan and the Gram Panchayat (GP) in issue as well as the Executive Assistant of the same GP in issue, requesting the addressees to act in terms of the purported order of this Court dated 12th December, 2017 as forwarded by the undated communication on behalf of the petitioner by his learned Advocate.

6. Mr. Jalaluddin, learned Advocate for the petitioner denies that the undated communication is on his regular letter pad and, also denies the signature on the said undated communication to be his signature/initials.

7. At this stage, Mr. Jalaluddin prays for withdrawal of the writ petition.

8. Upon a conjoint consideration of the above-recorded facts as well as on perusal of the record, this Court finds that there is NO order of this Court dated 12th December, 2017.

9. This Court therefore intends to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the undated allegedly fraudulent communication.

10. Accordingly, the following directions are passed:-

(a) Let D.I.G,C.I.D be added as a party respondent to the writ petition;

(b) Let the address of the D.I.G, C.I.D. be supplied by learned State Counsel to learned Advocate for the petitioner for carrying out direction (a) above

(c) Let a copy of the writ petition along with the undated communication as placed before this Court and the allegedly fake order sheet be supplied by the Private Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 to the D.I.G.,C.I.D.;

(d) Let the Bar Council of West Bengal be also added as a party respondent to this writ petition;

(e) Let a copy of this writ petition along with the documents as referred to at Para ( c) above, be also supplied to the Bar Council of West Bengal by the Private Respondent Nos. 9 and 10, which shall be represented through learned Counsel on the next date;

(f) The D.I.G., C.I.D. is directed to cause a thorough investigation into the allegedly undated communication and the fraudulent order sheet as recorded above and file his First Report through learned State Counsel on the next date.

(g) All parties shall cooperate with the investigation;

(h) The D.I.G., C.I.D., for the purpose of the investigation, is permitted to examine the original record pertaining to the writ petition for the ends of the investigation.

11. The respective parties shall furnish proof of service as directed above on the next date.

12. Let the matter be treated as 'Heard-in-Part' and, next appear under the heading "To Be Mentioned" on 31st of January, 2018.
O R