Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) Instead of disposing of the interlocutory application, we have heard out the appeal itself by treating it as on days' list with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) This mandamus appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ petitioner and is directed against order dated 22nd February, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court thereby dismissing a writ application filed by the appellant against order dated 18th June, 2002 communicated by the President, West Bengal Medical Council informing the writ petitioner that the Council did not find any merit in the allegations made against three of its members named in the complaint lodged by the appellant. By the said order, the appellant was further informed that the reason for rejection of the complaint, however, would be communicated to him in due course.
(3.) The facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal may be epitomised thus: (a) On the basis of complaint filed by the writ petitioner, the Council initiated proceedings against three different Doctors mentioned in the said complaint alleging negligence on their part in treating the wife of the appellant which resulted in her death. (b) Ultimately, the Council made final order in the proceedings on 20th May, 2002 holding that it found no merit in the complaint. (c) Being dissatisfied, the appellant, in the past, filed another writ application which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 23rd May, 2002 thereby setting aside the said order and directing the Council to give further opportunity of hearing to Mr. Pijush Dutt, the learned Counsel for the appellant as the learned Single Judge was of the view that Mr. Dutt did not get the opportunity of making submission on the last date fixed by Medical Council on 20th May, 2002 due to rejection of the prayer for adjournment. His Lordship, however, made it clear that no further adjournment should be prayed for on behalf of the appellant. (d) Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Council fixed a date for further hearing and gave notice to Mr. Pijush Dutt. Mr. Dutt, on the date fixed for hearing, gave a reply which arrived before the Council after the time fixed for hearing and actually, after the conclusion of fresh ex parte hearing, stating that he being a senior Advocate, the notice of hearing could not be given to him and the notice ought to have been addressed either to the Advocate-on-record or direct to the appellant. It, however, appears that Mr. Dutt himself had given reply in his letterhead and as pointed out earlier, such letter was received by the Council after the conclusion of hearing which was fixed at 1.00 p.m. The Medical Council by that time already recorded the order that as none appeared on behalf of the complaint in spite of giving opportunity in terms of the order of the High Court, it had decided to reconfirm the earlier order passed by the Council.;