( 1 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 has been served with notice of hearing of the instant application upon the personal assistant of Respondent No. 1, namely Mr. Dilip Majumdar, who however refused to put his signature at the copy of the letter but assured that the petition will be handed over to Miss. Mamata Banerjee, Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 is expected to return at her residence at about 2. 00 p. m. The Respondent No. 1a, Mr. Pankaj Banerjee, has not been served. On behalf of the Respondent No. 1b, Mr. D. C. Roy, learned Advocate appears along with Mr. H. Guha Roy. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been served and represented by Mr. Tapan Dutta, learned Advocate for the State of West Bengal. In view of the urgency, Rule 27 of the writ rules stands dispensed so far as non-appearing respondents are concerned. The petitioner, in person, appears and refers two judgments and decisions of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court, Bharat Kumar K. Palicha and Anr. v. State, reported in AIR 1997 Kerala page 291 which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and reported in 1998 at Supreme Court Cases (1) Pg. 201. The Supreme Court