Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 25th February, 2011 passed in CAN No.16 of 2011, CAN No.33 of 2011 and CAN No.36 of 2011 in WP N.1375 of 2010 by a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting in the Circuit Bench at Port Blair by which not only the order dated 5th January, 2011 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Hon?ble Court, sitting in Circuit was recalled and the writ petition was directed to be reconsidered afresh after exchange of affidavits between the parties but also two applications filed by two different set of applicants for their addition as respondents in the said writ petition, were allowed.
(2.) FOR proper appreciation of the merit of this appeal, let me give a brief background of the present litigation. The present writ petition being W.P. No.1375 of 2010 was filed by the appellant herein seeking issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to allow the boat operators to ply their vessels only after complying with the terms and conditions as specifically mentioned in the guidelines dated 15th January, 2010 which was framed by the Director General of Shipping pursuant to the direction passed by another learned Single Judge of this Hon?ble Court sitting in Circuit in the earlier writ petition being W.P. No.302 of 2008 on 16th June, 2009. Thus, in short, the appellants herein wanted to ply their vessels by complying with the terms and conditions of the said guidelines framed by the Director General of Shipping. The said writ petition being W.P. No.1375 of 2010 was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting in Circuit on 5th January, 2011, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to allow the boat operators to ply their vessels only after complying with the terms and conditions specifically mentioned in the guidelines dated 15th January, 2010 framed by the Director General of Shipping. In fact, apart from the appellant/writ petitioner and the respondent No.7 and the Administration of A & N Islands, none of the other respondents was present at the time of hearing of this writ petition. Fact remains that the writ petition was disposed of at the Motion stage without inviting any affidavit from any of the parties. After disposal of the said writ petition, an application for recall of the said order dated 5th January, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court sitting in Circuit was filed by the Administration primarily on the ground that since the said writ petition was disposed of at the Motion stage, certain material facts which were very relevant for deciding the issue involved in this writ petition, could not be placed before His Lordship at the time of disposal of the said writ petition due to non-availability of proper instructions from his clients which again was caused due to nonjoinder of the appropriate department of the administration as party in the said writ petition. It is further stated in the said recalling application that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the official respondents/applicants before disposal of the said writ petition.
(3.) MR. Mandal, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that even no opportunity for filing affidavit was given to his client though a prayer was made by him at the time of hearing of the writ petition. Suppression of a relevant notification issued sometime in 1972 by the petitioner, was also complained of by the official respondents in the said application for recall. The said application for recall was registered as CAN No.16 of 2011. The other two applications being CAN No.33 of 2011 and CAN No.36 of 2011 were filed by two sets of applicants praying for their impleadment in the writ petition as respondents therein. Considering the seriousness of the matter involved in the writ petition concerning the safety and security of the life and properties of thousands of tourists traveling in the ships in these Islands, another learned Single Judge of this Hon?ble Court sitting in the next Circuit recalled the order dated 5th January, 2011 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court sitting in the earlier Circuit, by which the said writ petition was disposed of as mentioned above. While allowing the said application for recall, the learned Trial Judge also took serious exception as certain material facts particularly the notification issued in 1972, which according to His Lordship ought to have been placed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Judge in course of hearing of the writ petition, were suppressed. It was also recorded in the impugned order that all the parties to the writ petition excepting the writ petitioner agreed for recall of the order dated 5th January, 2011 by which the writ petition was disposed of, so that the writ petition is reconsidered afresh after exchange of affidavits between the parties. His Lordship further recorded in the impugned order that the writ petitioner did not file any affidavit to the recall petition filed by the Administration, which is an incorrect finding, as it appears from the record that an affidavit filed by the writ petitioner to the said recall petition, is on record.;