AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The State has come up in appeal against an ad-interim order dated 29th July, 2013 passed by brother Kar Gupta, J. It was pointed out by Mr. Bhuniya, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent, that the order has already been carried out.
Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate, appearing for the State/appellant, wanted to take instructions in the matter. After taking instructions, he submitted that it is not a fact that the order has been carried out. On the contrary, the order was not required. On the day when the interim order was obtained, the School was no longer occupied. Therefore, the order under challenge should not have been passed.
Mr. Bhuniya did not dispute the fact that the School was vacated on 9th July, 2013 and the order under challenge was passed on 29th July, 2013. Therefore, Mr. Dutta is correct in saying that the order should not have been passed and is, accordingly, set aside.
We are told that the writ petition is pending. Let the writ petition be heard out on merits after exchange of affidavits.
Let affidavit-in-opposition to the pending writ petition be filed within four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Parties shall be at liberty to apply for early hearing of the writ petition after affidavits have been exchanged or after the time stipulated to file affidavits is over.
The appeal and the application are, thus, disposed of. Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all usual formalities.