PRATAP KUMAR RAY,J. - (1.) Stay application is taken up for hearing. The only grievance raised in the Memo of Appeal is that though Fox and Mandal, Advocates appeared for the respondent no.9 of the writ application, who is appellant before us, one Mr. Dulal Dey, learned Advocate who neither was authorised to appear on behalf of respondent no. 9 of the writ application appeared by filing an alleged Vakalatnama which was neither signed by the respondent no. 9 nor signed by the learned Advocate, Mr. Dulal Dey and on that basis Learned Trial Judge recorded appearance of respondent no. 9 through Mr. Dey and passed an order directing compliance of earlier order as passed.
(2.) In view of very nature of the grievance raised in this appeal, we are of the view that stay application could be disposed of along with the appeal itself. The appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for hearing since all parties are appearing. Service of notice of appeal and other formalities stand dispensed with. The Trial Court records have been called for. On perusal of the records, it appears that the present appellant was duly represented through M/s. Fox and Mandal, Advocates. Mr. Dulal Dey though filed a Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 9, but it was neither signed by the respondent no. 9 nor by the learned Advocate, Mr. Dey.
(3.) In view of such we are of the view that Mr. Dey had no right to represent respondent no. 9 in the Writ Court below. Besides such respondent no. 9 was duly represented through Fox and Mandal, Advocates therein. Having regard to such facts, direction given by the Learned Trial Judge noting appearance of Mr. Dulal Dey on behalf of respondent no. 9 to the concerned officer of the Corporation to serve notice upon Mr. Dey while inspection to be made, stands set aside and quashed. Recording of appearance of Mr. Dey, learned Advocate made by Learned Trial Judge also stands quashed.;