Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) Questioning the second show cause notice dated January 9th, 2007 issued by the managing director of the first respondent,qua disciplinary authority, the petitioner took out this writ petition alleging that though by representation dated January 11th, 2007 he requested the authority to supply to him a copy of the inquiry report, no step was taken for that purpose.
(2.) Considering the case of the petitioner that without supplying a copy of the inquiry report and giving opportunity of making representation against findings of the inquiry officer the disciplinary authority issued the second show cause notice proposing punishment. I entertained the writ petition, moved ex parte, by order dated January 18th, 2007 and made an interim order restraining the respondents from taking any further step in the proceedings. In response to notice of the case, the first respondent has entered appearance. Its counsel raises the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that first respondent being not a state or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner concedes that nothing has been stated in the writ petition to show that the first respondent is either an authority or a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. He further concedes that nothing has been stated either to say that the disciplinary authority committed breach of any statutory provision by issuing the second show-cause notice in question. Facing with the question of maintainability of the writ petition, he prays for adjournment for the purpose of filing a supplementary affidavit giving the particulars to show that the first respondent is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.;