Siddhartha Ghosh v. Union Of India

Daily List 9.

Bpg.

December 21, In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Via Video Conference) W.P.A. No.8148 of 2020 Siddhartha Ghosh and another

Versus

The Union of India and others Mr. Madhu Sudan Sarkar, Mr. Mousamjit Sarkar.

...for the petitioners.

Mr. Avinash Kankani.

...for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.

On consent, this matter is taken up for hearing, although the same is appearing in the list under the heading 'To be mentioned'.

The petitioners' grievance is that despite having approached the Registrar of Companies on January 3, 2019 with a request for insertion of a Director from the back end, the Registrar has not yet taken action thereon.

Learned counsel for the respondentauthorities, in his usual fairness, submits that the Registrar of Companies shall look into the matter and duly decide on the said request at the earliest.

Accordingly, WPA No.8148 of is disposed of by directing respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation given by the petitioners, dated January 3, 2019, which is annexed at page 28 of the writ petition (Annexure P/8) within four weeks from date.

In the event the petitioners are entitled to an opportunity of hearing/representation before the respondent no.2 as per law, the respondent no.2 shall make it convenient to fix a date for such hearing/representation by the petitioners and decide the matter thereafter within the time stipulated above. There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)