- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against various orders passed in WP No. 1587 of 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge, by the appellant, not a party to the writ petition, with leave of this Court. After having heard Mr. Sen, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mitra and Mr. Saha learned Counsel for the respective respondents No. 12 and 13, the transporters, who are parties to the writ petition, it appears that Mr. Sen has been able to raise a fair question to be gone into so far as the appellant is concerned. Therefore, we propose to grant leave to prefer this appeal. Accordingly, leave is granted in terms of prayer (a).
(2.) The application for stay of operation of the respective orders specified in the prayer thereto was pressed by Mr Sen and had made various submissions pointing out to various infirmities, irregularities and illegalities in the whole process in which the writ petition has been dealt with and has drawn our attention to the illegalities galore from the orders passed in the writ petition supported by various documents which are produced before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent, on the other hand, points out that many of these documents which have been used before this Court were not before the learned Single Judge and that many of the papers on which the learned Single Judge had relied upon have not been placed before this Court. Therefore, according to him, this Court cannot enter into the question raised by Mr. Sen without allowing affidavits in opposition by the respective parties bringing on records the relevant materials.;