- (1.) Pursuant to my order dated September 21, 2016 Mr. Majumder has produced in Court a report in the form of an affidavit affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Presidency Division. A copy of it had been served to the petitioner. Mr. Sanyal, the learned advocate for the petitioner, has vehemently assailed the report on various grounds, a lot of which is extra legal and borders on making political statements. I decide not to mention the same in my order.
(2.) The main thrust of the attack on the report is chronometric inconsistency and impossibility of the sequence of events which emerge from the report itself. According to Mr. Sanyal, if, as stated by the prescribed authority in his report, the notice of motion had been received by him at 4 p.m. the same could never have originated or signed in Berhampore on that very day or if the notice was signed by the requisistionists at Berhampore on September 14, 2016, it could not have been received by the prescribed authority on that date in Kolkata, and secondly if the notice had been sent from Berhampore Post Office at 3 p.m. then it could never have been sent to the prescribed authority at 4 p.m. According to him, the Divisional Commissioner, holding such a high rank, had not disclosed how the requisitionists reached Kolkata in such a short time and the report is silent about it. While assailing the conduct of the prescribed authority Mr. Sanyal used certain vilifying words about the prescribed authority which for reasons of sobriety decency I would not like to record in my order. I merely put it on record that the Court does not appreciate such word to be used against anybody without any firm evidence. The political possibilities and the ramification are not the look out of the Court and are definitely beyond its business. The only thing that the Court has to be satisfied is whether the requirements of law as provided in the concerned statute have been meticulously complied with. The only point of the variegated submission of Mr. Sanyal that calls for an explanation was the means by which the copy of the postal receipts could be sent to the Divisional Commissioner within an hour's time.
(3.) Mr. Kar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the requisitionists, produced the original postal receipts. He explained how it was sent to the Commissioner. He said that after the notice was sent by registered post to the petitioner, the requisitionists scanned and sent the same through electronic means to Mr. Mosharaf Hossain who was waiting in Kolkata. He had downloaded it and served a copy to the Divisional Commissioner. Mr. Kar volunteered to file an affidavit putting the same on record. I do not think it necessary as the method submitted by Mr. Kar appears to be sufficiently plausible in a technologically advanced society and the person conversant with the method cannot be blamed if they take recourse to modern day technology. That apart an affidavit from him might only lengthen the longevity of the writ petition which is otherwise absolutely uncalled for.;