Shri. Iftiquar Ali Ahmed v. The Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/10/2025 Shri Iftiquar Ali Ahmed Vs.

The Union of India and Others Mr. Terence D. Cruz ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty,Sr.Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents March 20, 2025 [SR] Item No.3 1.

The review applicant has filed this review application on the ground that while disposing of the original application that there has been violation of Rule 9.3(b) of the Andaman and Nicobar Police Manual 1963 as the competent authority for framing of charges would be the Superintendent of Police whereas in his case it was framed by the Director General of Police. Moreover, the competent authority has not imposed the penalty. These provisions were not noticed as considered by the learned Tribunal in disposing of the original application. It is stated that the said provisions were not within the knowledge of the applicant at the time when the original application was heard. Accordingly, the original application is required to be heard on the limited issue with regard to the applicability of Rule 9.3(b) read with Rule 9.1 (Appendix 9.1). 2.

As rightly observed by the learned Tribunal that it cannot be said to be discovery of new fact or nor there is error apparent on the face of the order. However, it is needless to mention that in the event the said rules are applicable in the present facts

and circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall not be precluded from raising such issue in the writ petition intended to be filed against the parent order of the CAT. 3.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. We make it clear that this Court has not gone into merits of the matter nor this order can be construed as an expression of opinion on the applicability of the aforesaid provisions on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4.

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

( Soumen Sen, J. ) (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. )