AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. AH Hazarika, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.1 and Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned counsel appears for the respondents No.2
to 6.
Though service on the respondents No.7 to 13 is not complete but having regard to the circumstances of the case, service on these proforma
respondents does not appear necessary, and is dispensed with.
The only grievance in this intra-court appeal against the order dated 16.11.2016, as passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C)
No.45 of 2016, is that there had not been any justification for directing personal presence of the appellant, who is arrayed as respondent No.5 in
the writ petition and against whom, certain allegations have been made by the writ petitioner. The impugned order reads as under:-
16.11.2016
Heard learned counsels for the parties, Mr. A.H. Hazarika, Mr. N.D. Chullai, Mr. P. Yobin and Mr. K. Paul.
For proper adjudication of this writ petition, I am of the view that the presence of the accused/respondents No.5 to 12, the
Superintendent of Police, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat along with the Investigating Officer, and the petitioner is required before
this Court.
Registry is directed to issue notice to the respondents No.5 to 12, Superintendent of Police, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat, the
Investigating Officer and the petitioner immediately.
List this matter on 29-11-2016 as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties.
On 25.11.2016, we found that the appellant has raised arguable issues in this matter and hence, notices were ordered to be issued to the
respondents; and by way of interim order, the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 16.11.2016 was stayed qua the appellant and
only in relation to his personal presence in the Court.
Learned counsel for the parties have placed before us the subsequent order dated 29.11.2016 in the said writ petition whereby, while issuing
certain directions to the concerned police officers present before the Court, the learned Single Judge dispensed with the personal presence of the
Superintendent of Police as also of the other respondents of the writ petition (who are the respondents No.7 to 13 herein).
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) frankly submits that though the petitioner seeks to contest the matter on merits in the
writ petition but, in view of the fact the personal presence of other private respondents has already been dispensed with by the learned Single
Judge and in the totality of circumstances, he may not contest the matter so far personal presence of the appellant is concerned. We find the stand
on behalf of the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) fair and justified.
In our view, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the issues raised by the writ petitioner, the stage had not reached for
directing personal presence of any of the parties in the Court. Now, when personal presence of the other respondents of the writ petition has
already been dispensed with, we are of the view that interest of justice shall be served by making the order dated 25.11.2016 absolute, while
leaving all other aspects relating to merits open, to be examined before the learned Single Judge. Needless to say that we have not made any
comment on merits of the case either way.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.