Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
Basanta Das & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
WPA Nos. 2613, 22522, 22523, 22550, 22773, 22780, 22782, 22785, 22973 of 2018 With WPA No. 16844 of 2019 With WPA No. 18355 of 2019, IA No. CAN 1 of 2020
Decided On : 24-01-2024
Writ Petition - Addition of Parties - WPA 13700 of 2021, WPA 25380 of 2022, WPA 18585 of 2021, WPA 12270 of 2021, WPA 5406 of 2022 - The court allowed the addition of parties in multiple writ petitions and treated the applications as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petitions. The court also considered the admissibility of supplementary affidavits and directed the parties to produce relevant documents/materials by a specified date for further consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The court allowed the addition of parties in multiple writ petitions and considered the admissibility of supplementary affidavits. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was directed to produce seized electronic devices, but they were unable to do so due to the devices being with the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in Hyderabad.
Finding of the Court:
The court postponed the decision on the admissibility of the supplementary affidavit and directed the parties to produce relevant documents/materials by a specified date for further consideration.
Issues: Admissibility of supplementary affidavits, production of seized electronic devices, and introduction of additional evidence in the proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the addition of parties and considered the admissibility of supplementary affidavits. The court also directed the parties to produce relevant documents/materials by a specified date for further consideration.
Final Decision: The court postponed the decision on the admissibility of the supplementary affidavit and directed the parties to produce relevant documents/materials by February 5, 2024, for further consideration.
JUDGMENT :
In Re: CAN/31/2024 in WPA 13700 of 2021
1. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicant, CAN/31/2024 filed in WPA 13700 of 2021 is allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for.
2. Such application be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition.
In Re: CAN/7/2024 in WPA 25380 of 2022
3. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicants, CAN/7/2024 filed in WPA 25380 of 2022 is allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for.
4. Such application be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition.
In Re: CAN/29/2024 and CAN/30/2024 in WPA 13700 of 2021
5. The applicants in CAN/29/2024 and CAN/30/2024 be added as party respondents in WPA 13700 of 2021.
6. Such applications be treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition on behalf of such applicants.
In Re: CAN/5/2024 and CAN/10/2024 in WPA 18585 of 2021
7. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicants, CAN/5/2024 and CAN/10/2024 filed in WPA 18585 of 2021 are allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for.
8. Such applications be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition.
In Re: CAN/7/2023 and CAN/9/2024 in WPA 12270 of 2021
9. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicants, CAN/7/2023 and CAN/9/2024 filed in WPA 12270 of 2021 are allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for.
10. Such applications be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition.
In Re: CAN/12/2023, CAN/29/2024 and CAN/32/2024 in WPA 5406 of 2022
11. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicants, CAN/12/2023, CAN/29/2024 and CAN/32/2024 filed in WPA 5406 of 2022 are allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for.
12. Such applications be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition.
In Re: CAN/9/2024 in WPA 18585 of 2021
13. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicant, CAN/9/2024 filed in WPA 18585 of 2021 is allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for.
14. Such application be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition.
In Re: CAN/6/2024 in WPA 25380 of 2022
15. On the prayer made on behalf of the applicant, CAN/6/2024 filed in WPA 25380 of 2022 is allowed to the extent of addition of parties as prayed for.
16. Such application be also treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition.
17. Supplementary affidavit and notes of arguments filed on behalf of the petitioners in WPA 14670 of 2022 be taken on record.
18. Exception to the affidavit of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) already filed in Court be taken on record.
19. At the commencement of hearing Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, seeks leave to rely upon an affidavit affirmed by one Anindita Bera on January 24, 2024, petitioner of WPA 5538 of 2022. He draws the attention of the Court to the contents of such affidavit and submits that, in response to a Right To Information Application made on February 24, 2021 the School Service Commission by a writing dated January 18, 2024 stated that, School Service Commission possess the OMR sheet. He draws attention of the Court to the photocopy of the OMR sheet as made over to Anindita Bera by the School Service Commission. He submits that the School Service Commission is in possession of the OMR sheet and therefore School Service Commission be directed to produce the same.
20. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Lakshmi Gupta appearing for some of the applicants refers to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that, peacemeal introduction of material should not be allowed.
21. Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for some of the applicants submits that, the date for production of the seized electronic devises ends today. He submits that, Court should not permit introduction of materials such as the supplementary affidavit from time to time. He submits that, there is a procedure established by law, if, the parties requires to
The court has the discretion to allow the addition of parties in writ petitions and to consider the admissibility of supplementary affidavits. The court also has the authority to direct the parties t....
The court has the discretion to allow successful serving candidates to be added as party-respondents in pending writ petitions and may treat their applications as affidavit-in-oppositions to the writ....
The central legal point established is the requirement for certification of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
The main legal point established is that curable defects in an affidavit can be rectified, and the court has the power to allow amendment or strike out irrelevant matter in the affidavit to balance a....
The accused is not entitled to provide evidence via affidavit under the Negotiable Instruments Act; such a right is exclusively reserved for the complainant to ensure a fair trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
