Tania Mukherjee vs. The State Of West Bengal
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Mention Memo
Before:
Hon'ble Hon'Ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Hon'Ble The Chief Justice
Stage:
FRESH (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES
Remarks:
Dismissed
Listed On:
27 Jan 2022
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.7 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition (Civil) No.34/2022
TANIA MUKHERJEE & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for IA No.8745/2022-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)
Date : 27-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Kartik Kr. Ray, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
- 1 Since the petitioners have an alternate remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Petition is dismissed on this ground alone leaving it open to the petitioners to move the Calcutta High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- 2 The Petition is dismissed.
3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
A.R.-cum-P.S. COURT MASTER
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
ITEM NO.7 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition (Civil) No.34/2022
TANIA MUKHERJEE & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for IA No.8745/2022-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)
Date : 27-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Kartik Kr. Ray, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
- 1 Since the petitioners have an alternate remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Petition is dismissed on this ground alone leaving it open to the petitioners to move the Calcutta High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- 2 The Petition is dismissed.
- 3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. COURT MASTER