- (1.) This application has been taken out by the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, respondent No. 2, in the above matter for recalling order dated 16th July, 2008 in WPST No. 243 of 2004 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. It appears from the statement made in the said application the aforesaid relief is sought for in the context of the observation and remarks made in order dated 16th July, 2008. In the present application it is said that the remarks made by this Court was causing serious harm to his reputation and such a remark was based on submission made by the learned Counsel for the State Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mandal. It is stated that on receipt of the said order dated 16th July, 2008 containing remarks and observation the applicant wrote a letter to his learned Advocate, Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal regarding submission made by him in Court. His submissions were recorded by the Court in the context of filing of a report by the applicant in terms of the previous order passed by this Court on 2nd July, 2008. According to the applicant, the submission made by Mr. Mandal was not correct as the format of and/or draft report was prepared by him and the same on his advice was accepted, finalised and subsequently signed by the applicant. Therefore, it is not his fault but the fault and lapses on the part of the learned Lawyer, Mr. Mondal. It is further stated that after rendering advice to the applicant with regard to filing a report in this Court in such corm and manner how he could make such submission that such form of the report was not approved by him. It is also stated in the application that the learned lawyer Mr. Mondal replied to the said letter and informed him that he did not make such submission before the Court. Perhaps he could not make himself clear before the Court as to why his submission was recorded in difficult way. Accordingly, Mr. Mondal explained to the applicant, Commissioner, that he never made such submission.
(2.) It is further stated and submitted that there is no particular method and form by which a report should be filed in the Court by any officer or person according to the Appellate Side Rules and he acted under the advice of the learned Lawyer Mr. Mandal. Therefore, there is no lapses on his part nor did he intend to disregard the majesty of the Court. He is always respectful and has due obedience to the writs and orders issued by this Court. He has also prepared a report in proper manner and seeks to file the same for which he wants extension of time to file the same.
(3.) The learned Advocate General while placing this application submits that the remarks and observation made by this Court for not filing the report in proper form is really made on mis-communication of the fact and submission of the learned Lawyer. The Commissioner acted bona fide on the advice of the learned Lawyer. Such remarks and observation made in paragraphs 2 and 4 at page 2 of the said order are seriously affecting his interest and also his reputation and in fact it has got demoralised effect as a police officer. He very respectfully reminds the Court in which cases, where and when the judicial remarks and observation should be made in a judicial pronouncement. By making such remarks the Court should follow the well-settled principles, norms and judicial discipline as from time to time the Supreme Court has given guideline. In support of his submission on the question of making a remark and observation of the judicial pronouncement he has brought the following Supreme Court decisions for the assistance of the Court State of Karnataka v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, 2000 7 SCC 333; In the matter of : K a Judicial Officer, 2001 3 SCC 54; State represented by Inspector of Police and Ors. v. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate, 2004 5 SCC 729; Testa Setalvad & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2004 10 SCC 88; Samya Sett v. Shambhu Sarkar & Anr., 2005 6 SCC 767; State of Rajasthan v. Netrapal & Ors., 2007 4 SCC 45.;