Disposed

Amarendra Nath Halder & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Calcutta HC8 Feb 2021WPA/20412/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petition under Article 226 where the High Court directed the Registrar General to furnish a reply to a corruption complaint filed by the petitioner. The court explicitly declined to examine the merits or maintainability of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directive to Registrar General to furnish a reply to the petitioner's complaint within three weeks.

Amarendra Nath Halder & Anr. Vs Union… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

S/L 16 08.02.2021 Court No.26 SD

¶2

WPA 20412 of 2019 (Via Video Conference)

¶3

Amarendra Nath Halder & Anr.

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Union of India & Anr.

¶6

Mr. Amarendra Nath Halder

¶7

… Petitioner (in person).

¶8

Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty

¶9

… for the High Court Administration.

¶10

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is seeking an enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation on alleged corruption involved in passing of a decree by the Judge deciding the matter in first appeal.

¶11

It is to be noted that the original decree has been challenged in first appeal, second appeal and thereafter in the Supreme Court by the petitioners but they have not succeeded in setting aside the original decree.

¶12

Subsequent to the same, the petitioner no.1 has filed a complaint dated March 25, 2019 against the concerned Judicial Officer before the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta.

¶13

Counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court Administration submits that the complaint filed by the petitioner is not in accordance with law and is not accompanied by a sworn affidavit. However, he agrees that a

¶14

¶15

reply should have been given to the petitioner with regard to his complaint.

¶16

In light of the above, I direct the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta to furnish a reply to the petitioner no.1 to the complaint dated March 25, 2019 within a period of three weeks from date.

¶17

I make it clear that I have not into the merits of the case including the point of maintainability.

¶18

With these observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶19

Since, no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents.

¶20

There will be no order as to costs.

¶21

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶22

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

Amarendra Nath Halder & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarendra Nath Halder & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhajahari Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Suman Pal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rudra Narayan Misra Vs W B B S E & Ors.

Bikram Karmakar & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Bindubhusan Mondal Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Sujit Kumar Saha & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.