Remanded

Dhakalia Agro Prod. P. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Calcutta HC10 Nov 2021MAT/2004/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the earlier order dismissing a writ petition without hearing, and remanded the matter to the learned single judge for fresh adjudication after affording parties an opportunity of hearing on issues of legitimate expectation and entitlement.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; the matter is remitted to the learned single judge for fresh decision after hearing.

Dhakalia Agro Prod. P. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

10.11.2021 jb/sb.

¶3

M.A.T. 2004 of 2019

¶4

[CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 332 of 2020)]

¶5

Dhakalia Agro Products Private Limited & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Arindam Banerjee Ms. Sulagna Mukherjee Mr. Ashis Kr. Mukherjee Mr. Saurabh Prasad …. For the Appellants

¶7

Mr. Amitabha Mitra Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta …. For the Respondent Nos. 1-4

¶8

Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick …. For the State

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12^th December, 2019 dismissing W.P. 22929(W) of 2016.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records we have noticed that the writ petition has been dismissed in the absence of the

¶12

¶13

MAT 2004 of 2019

¶14

counsel for the petitioners. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that certain relevant issues in respect of the legitimate expectation of the appellants to derive the benefit under the scheme of the Central Government as also the entitlement of the appellants after the change of the policy is involved which needs consideration in the matter, but as the petition was dismissed in the absence of the counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the same could not be pointed out.

¶15

It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the learned single Judge by the earlier order dated 3^rd October, 2016 after examining the matter had recorded the view that the issue requires adjudication, but by the subsequent impugned order without adjudicating the issue, the petition has been dismissed simply on the ground that the writ petition is filed against the policy decision, which cannot be assailed. The impugned order reflects that the issue involved in the matter has not been examined. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the matter needs to be remitted back to the learned single Judge for fresh adjudication after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing.

¶16

Hence, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 12^th December, 2019 is set aside and the

¶17

¶18

MAT 2004 of 2019

¶19

matter is remitted back to the learned single Judge for fresh decision in accordance with law.

¶20

MAT 2004 of 2019 along with CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 332 of 2020) thus stand disposed of.

¶21

[ Prakash Shrivastava, (C. J.)]

¶22

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)

Dhakalia Agro Prod. P. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhakalia Agro Prod. P. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrityunjay Kumar Pandey Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Anima Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Amal Chaudhury Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Khristodan Neye Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs Sushila Drolia

Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.