BASUDEB ROY Vs. NATIONAL FERTILIZER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVIEW is sought of the judgment dated 19th October, 2012 dismissing WP(C) No.2652/1999 preferred by the review applicant in the absence of the review applicant or his counsel, though on merits. The counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice. For the reasons stated in the review application explaining the absence of the review applicant and his counsel on 19th October, 2012 when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, an opportunity of addressing on merits has been given to the counsel for the review applicant/petitioner. The counsel for the respondent who appears on advance notice has also been heard in opposition.

(2.) NEED is not felt to reiterate whatsoever is already stated in the judgment dated 19th October, 2012 and the counsel for the petitioner also has argued only to urge why a view different from that already taken, be taken. Accordingly this order be read in continuation of the judgment dated 19th October, 2012.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent has stated that pursuant to the judgment dated 19th October, 2012, service of the petitioner, vide Office Order dated 19th November, 2012 has already been terminated as discharged simplicitor. A copy of the said order has been handed over in the Court and also to the counsel for the petitioner who though states that the same has not been served on the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent states that since the petitioner had not been coming to the office, the same has been dispatched to the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent has further invited attention to paras 20,26,29,33 to 36, 38 to 41, 42 and 44 of Uma Devi, including on the aspect of parity.