ORIENT PAPER INDUSTRIES TLD Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(CAL)-1983-7-26
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 13,1983

ORIENT PAPER INDUSTRIES TLD Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) AN application for restoration of the Rule Nisi since dismissed for default for not putting the requisities for service of the Rule Nisi on the respondents in terms of the order passed by this Court on 31-7-83 has been filed by the petitioners. It appears that, the writ petition was moved' with notice to the Central Government and as a matter of fact the learned Counsels also appeared for the Central Government at the time of issuing the Rule Nisi on may 24, 1982. It, however, appears that no memo of appearance was filed on behalf of any of the Central Government respondents. As a result, the office of this Court put up a note that the petitioners were required to put in the requisite number of copies for service on the respondents and also the cost of service. It also appears from the records that the application for interim order made by the petitioners was also contested on behalf of the Government respondents by the learned Counsels appearing for such Respondents before this Court and it appears that against the interim order passed by this Court, an appeal was preferred by the Respondents and the interim order passed by the Trial Court was thereafter vacated by the Appeal Court after a contested hearing. It, however, appears that against the order passed by the Appeal court vacating the interim order, a special leave petition has since been filed by the petitioners. The said special leave petition is pending final disposal. But the Supreme Court in the special leave petition has observed that the writ petition should be disposed of as early as possible and the learned Judge in disposing of the writ petition will consider the question of maintainability of the writ petition before this Court independently without being, influenced by the observation of the appeal Court.
(2.) IT also appears that an application for addition of parties was made and after a contested hearing such application was allowed and memo of appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 10 has also been filed. But since no appearance was filed on behalf of any of the Government Respondents the matter appeared before this Court on 10. 3. 83 for necessary direction regarding filing of requisite copies for service on the non-appearing respondents and also the cost of service and it appears that on 10. 3. 83 this Court passed' an order that the requisites under report should be put in within two weeks from that date in default the same would be placed for final orders. Such requisites in terms of the Court's direction had not been put in. The matter was again placed before this Court for final order on 31. 3. 83. This Court passed a final order to the effect that if the requisites under report would not be put within two weeks from the said date, the rule would stand discharged. It appears that the requisites had not been put in within two weeks from that date. But the requisites thereafter were put on 19. 4. 83 which is 5 days beyond the time granted by this court on 31. 3. 83.
(3.) FROM the affidavit-in-reply filed to this application for restoration, it appears that the Central Government Advocate wrote to M/s. Khaitan and Company, Advocates and Solicitors representing to the petitioners that five copies of the writ petitions would be sent to the Central Government Advocate for further action on behalf of the respondents and it was stated in the said letter of the Central Government Advocate that as the respondents were many and located in different places outside Calcutta one copy of the writ petition since served on the Central Government Advocate would not be sufficient. It may be noted that before the issuance of the rule Nisi a copy of the writ petition was served on the Central Government Advocate according to Rules framed by this Court and as aforesaid the Counsel appeared before this Court representing the Central Government. The said letter of the Central Government Advocate from the Branch Secretariat of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company affairs at Calcutta is Annexure 'a' to the: affidavit-in-reply.;


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