Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) In view of the order dated August 28th, 2007 the petitioner has taken out this application for appointing a special officer so that papers and documents if available in the office that according to the petitioner he was running from the warehouse possession whereof was taken by the port trust in September, 2006 may be, collected. The writ petition was filed contending that on the basis of the order of the company Court, obtained by the port trust, it was not entitled or authorised to take possession of the warehouse in question without due process of law. Whether the port trust took the possession in accordance with law is a question that is to be decided in the writ petition. The matter was being heard for final disposal and in course of hearing certain questions arose regarding the genuineness of an agreement a partly illegible xerox copy whereof was produced with the writ petition. In that context I made the order dated August 28th, 2007.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that today the petitioner cannot definitely say whether any document is still lying in his office he was maintaining in the warehouse, since possession thereof was taken by the port trust as back as September, 2006. By referring me to the statements made in the application, and particularly to those made in para 9. Counsel for the port trust submits that this is a mala fide application. His submission is that whatever the petitioner has said in Para 5 does not make out anything but a vague case for introducing new facts at the final hearing stage of the writ petition. His argument is that since the petitioner has not specifically said anywhere in the application that original of any agreement was lying at any place in the warehouse, there is no reason for the writ Court to make an unusual order for appointing a special officer.
(3.) After hearing Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the writ petition it will be just and convenient to appoint a special officer who will inspect the warehouse in question for ascertaining whether any paper or document owned and possessed at the relevant point of time by the petitioner is available. The questions which have arisen are whether the petitioner was in possession of any portion of the warehouse, and whether he was actually running any office from there. If papers and documents owned and possessed by him at the relevant point of time are available, those will be relevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the principal question involved in the writ petition. I am unable to accept the contention that the application has been taken out mala fide. In my view, in the face of the statement made in para 5 that most of the documents and papers were lying at his office maintained by the petitioner in the warehouse, an order appointing a special officer should be made.;