LAKHINDER SAMADDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter was heard on 20.8.2009,21.8.2009 and it was adjourned till 25.8.2009. Learned Counsel for the State-respondent is not present. It appears that learned Counsel for the appellant has concluded his submission and the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent has also submitted and learned Counsel for the State was submitting. However, today the matter despite being called on for the second time Learned Counsel for the State/respondent is not present. This matter is appearing under the heading 'For Orders' for days together; we were under the impression that he would conclude his submissions today. But, he failed to turn up. Hence we decided to dispose of this matter having noted the arguments already advanced.

(2.) This appeal is against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.4.2008 whereby and whereunder the applications were disposed of by and under common judgment and order. The appellant before us during pendency of the writ petition filed an application being G. A.No.144 of 2008 for impleading themselves in the writ petition, as party petitioners, thereafter an application was filed by the writ petitioners/respondent being G A. No. 305 of 2008 for withdrawal of the same. Learned Single Judge while hearing both the applications has been pleased to allow the prayer for withdrawal and as such dismissed the application for addition of parties. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment and order is questioned by the appellants. The appellants before us have said in their application for addition of parties that they are excise licensees and are running their respective business of country spirit off and on shop having their respective outlets. They say that they are seriously affected by the Government Circular/Notification being Memo No.28-30/203-04/2736 (21)E dated 21st November, 2003, Letter/Notice dated 20th January, 2004; Order/Letter No. Con-25/04-05/C-162(1)E dated 6th August, 2004 etc.

(3.) They have also said that they have their common interest and same affectation with those of the writ petitioners by the aforesaid memos which have been challenged here in the instant writ petition. The petitioners have narrated sequence of the events which had taken place in the said writ petition. We are not concerned with all these details. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State it has not been denied and disputed that the applicants are the licensees and was also affected by the same decisions and orders. The writ petition has been filed by an association and we have asked production to be given of the original writ petition, since it is not annexed. We have examined the scope and purport of the same and we find that affectation of right of the members of the said association are also same as it has been alleged in the application for addition of parties.