Sri. Keshab Chakraborty v. The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department of Forest and ors
Court: High Court of Tripura
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Tripura judgment dated 2024-11-18. Sri. Keshab Chakraborty v. The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department of Forest and ors. Read the judgment...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Review Pet. No. 25 of 2024 Sri Keshab Chakraborty, S/o. Lt. Dhirendra Chakraborty, resident of Taltala, Madhyapara Bardwali, P. O. & P. S. -A. D. Nagar, District-West Tripura. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department of Forests, Civil Secretariat, New Capital Complex, P. O. -Kunjaban-799010, P. S. -N. C. C. , Dist. -West Tripura. 2. Tripura Forest Development Corporation Ltd. , Abhoynagar, P. O. - Abhoynagar-799010, P. S. -N. C. C. , Dist. -West Tripura. 3. The Managing Director, Tripura Forest Development Corporation Ltd. , Abhoynagar, P. O. -Abhoynagar-799010, P. S. -N. C. C. , Dist. -West Tripura. 4. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Civil Secretariat, New Capital Complex, P. O. -Kunjaban-799010, P. S. -N. C. C. , Dist. -West Tripura. 5. The Director of the Industries, Government of Tripura, Gurkhabasti, P. O. -Kunjaban, Pin-799010, P. S. -N. C. C. , Dist. -West Tripura. …. Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. C.
Roy, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, GA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 18/11/2024 Heard Mr. D. C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, learned GA appearing for the respondents-State. This review petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to review the order dated 27. 02. 2024 passed by this Court in connection with WP(C) No. 21 of 2024. This Court vide order dated 27. 02. 2024 had made an observation that “the service of the petitioner has not been regularized in the post against which he was appointed”. Having taken notice of the said portion of the order, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the service of the petitioner was already regularized, which fact could not be stated out of inadvertence. Now, Mr.
Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner by filing the review petition has submitted that the service of the petitioner has already been regularized, which fact may be reflected in the order dated 27. 02. 2024. This is not a case where the review petition can be entertained. However, for ends of justice the Court feels that such observation can be made in view of the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, on the basis of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner an observation is made that the service of the petitioner had been regularized during the tenure of his service under the respondents. In view of the above, the instant review petition stands disposed. JUDGE Snigdha Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GHOSH Date: 2024. 11. 18 GHOSH 16:36:54 +05'30'
Source: High Court of Tripura. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.