- (1.) The Court : By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the connected application.
(2.) The instant appeal arises out of an order dated 18th July, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge. By the said order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of two interlocutory applications, being GA No. 540 of 2018 and GA No. 1608 of 2019 in the following manner :- "The Court : The petitioner has taken out an application for amendment of the writ petition, being GA No. 540 of 2018. Mr. Samanta, learned advocate for the petitioner submits, on instruction, that he is not pressing the application. The application, being GA No. 540 of 2018, is dismissed as not pressed. Pursuant to the earlier order, the original records have been produced by the High Court Administration. Inspected the records in presence of the learned advocates for all the parties and returned the same to the learned advocate for the High Court Administration. Learned advocate for the High Court Administration is directed to produce the records as and when they may be necessary. The respondent no. 5 has taken out an application, being GA No. 1608 of 2019 inter alia praying for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and res judicata. Since this point has already been taken in the affidavit-in-opposition, it may not be necessary to pass a separate order on the application. Heard Mr. Lihiri, learned advocate for the respondent no. 5. Heard Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate for the High Court Administration. Hearing has not been concluded. On the prayer of Mr. Kar, let this matter appear for further hearing on July 23, 2019 at 2 P.M."
(3.) The present appeal has been preferred by the applicant in GA No. 1608 of 2019, who happens to be the private respondent no. 4 (wrongly described as respondent no. 5) in the writ proceedings. In the said application, being GA No. 1608 of 2019, the applicant (being the appellant herein) had prayed, inter alia, for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and res judicata. The learned Single Judge has observed - to the effect - that since this point has already been taken in the affidavit- in-opposition, it may not be necessary to pass a separate order on the application. Admittedly, in the writ proceedings, affidavits have already been exchanged between the parties. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed before the First Court by the appellant herein (being the respondent no. 4 in the writ proceedings), she has taken the two points which she took in GA No. 1608 of 2019, apart from other points. As such, we do not notice any palpable infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which would warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. We, however, make it clear that the two points - that is - delay and res judicata shall be considered as preliminary issues by the First Court at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. Since no affidavits have been called for, allegations made in the application, being GA No. 1670 of 2019, shall be deemed to be not admitted by the respondents. The appeal along with the connected application stands disposed of accordingly.;