JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS,J. - (1.) The petitioner in this WP under Article 226 dated December 21, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief: "a) A Rule be issued in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to follow the order of the Hon'ble Court and also to consider the representation dated 19,12,2009 as in Annexure "P-1" and "P-3" to the Writ Petition."
(2.) The representation dated December 19, 2009 referred to in prayer (a) is actually a lawyer's notice dated December 19, 2009 and it is at p.20. It has been marked Annexure P2, not P3. The document marked Annexure P1 is actually an order of this Court dated December 1, 2009 passed in a WP No.11123 (W) of 2009 previously filed by the petitioner under Article 226.
(3.) The order dated December 1, 2009 disposing of the petitioner's previous WP is quoted below: "It has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that she has been allowed to meet her father by the private respondents. The learned Counsel representing the petitioner submits that the private respondents are illegally interfering with the right of the petitioner to meet her father, who, according to the petitioner, has been illegally confined by the private respondents. The learned Counsel representing the private respondents, however, denies the aforesaid allegations. Having heard the learned Counsel representing the petitioner as well as the private respondents and further considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I dispose of this petition by directing the respondent no.4 to render adequate assistance to the petitioner so that the said petitioner can meet her father without any obstruction and/interference of the private respondents. In the facts of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the petitioner as early as possible.";