Smti.Hemalatha v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/95/2025 Smt Hemlatha Vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Ms. G.Mini ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondent nos.1 to 4 February 24, 2025 [SR] Item no.5 1.

Ms. G. Mini, learned advocate appears for the petitioner. Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior advocate appears for the respondent nos.1 to 4.

2.

Respondent nos.5 to 7 are not represented and the postal track report with regard to service upon them has not yet been returned. Therefore, there is no conclusive evidence of service. 3.

However, considering the issue involved in this writ petition, this Court proceeds to dispose of this writ petition as any further pendency of this writ petition will not serve any fruitful purpose.

4.

The sole grievance of the writ petitioner is that though the hearing of the proceeding being RC No.158/AC(S)/ Earth/R/2018 has been concluded way back on August 16, 2023 and the parties have filed their written notes before the respondent no.2, till date no reasoned order has been communicated to the petitioners.

5.

In view of the above, the respondent no.2 is directed to communicate the reasoned order to the petitioner and the

parties to the proceeding positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 6.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior advocate appearing for the Administration of the Islands submits that the concerned hearing officer has been changed.

7.

In the event of such changed circumstance, if it is found that the hearing has to be held de novo, the present incumbent at the post of respondent no.2 shall issue a further prior notice of hearing of at least seven days to the parties to the said proceeding and then after granting them an opportunity of hearing, shall dispose of the same by a passing a reasoned order, in accordance with law.

8.

This exercise, in that event, shall be carried out and completed by the respondent no.2 positively within a period eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The reasoned order then shall be communicated to the parties to the proceeding positively within a week from the date of the said reasoned order to be passed.

9.

It is needless to mention that in the event of de novo hearing, hearing shall take place only on the basis of the existing record and not beyond that.

10.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone in to the merits of the claim of the parties to the said proceeding and the writ petition also.

11.

It is made clear that, this order shall not create any right or equity in favour of the parties to the said proceeding.

12.

Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

13.

The petitioner shall serve copy of today's order upon the respondent no.2 and the non-appearing respondents today and shall produce proof of service of today's order before the respondent no.2, in the event, de novo hearing takes place. 14.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition WPA/95/2025 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

( Aniruddha Roy, J. )