BIDHU BHUSAN BAGCHI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1951-8-29
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 20,1951

BIDHU BHUSAN BAGCHI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

THE KING V. THE ELECTRICITY COMMISSIONERS [REFERRED TO]
ERRINGTON V. MINISTER OF HEALTH [REFERRED TO]
PROVINCE OF BOMBAY V. GOBINDARAM KHUSHALDAS S.ADWANI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

ALLUM KARIBASAPPA VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1973-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
HARAKH BHAGAT VS. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(PAT)-1967-7-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.N.Das, J. - (1.)This Rule was issued by this Court calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order, dated 4-13. 1951, superseding the District Board of Murshida-bad, should not be set aside, or why a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari and/or Prohibition under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India should not issue restraining the opposite parties from giving effect to the aforesaid order and the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate of Murshidabad delegating powers to the S. D. O. to administer the said District Board, or why such other or further order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
(2.)The petition on which the Rule was issued purports to have been made by one Bidhu Bhusan Bagchi styling himself as ex-member and second vice-Chairman of the District Board on behalf of himself and other members of the Board. It does not appear, however, that the other members of the District Board joined the petitioner in moving the application. The petition was presented by a learned Advocate of this Court on the strength of a power conferred on the learned Advocate by the said Bidhu Bhusan Bagchi. The petition must, therefore, be regarded as a petition made on behalf of Bidhu Bhusan Bagchi himself. The opposite parties to this Rule are the State of West Bengal represented by (1) Janab A. Zaman, Deputy Secretary, Local-Self Government Department; (2) the District Magistrate of Murshidabad, and (3) Sri S. P. Banerjee, Senior Deputy Collector of Murshidabad.
(3.)The other Rule which was heard along with this Rule is numbered as 1692 of 195l. It purports to have been made by Surendra Narayan Sinha, who was described as an Ex-Chairman of the District Board of Murshidabad.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.