Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47400 (CAL)

PINTU SHAW v. REG. MGR. WBSEDCL AND ORS.

WPA/27082/2023 · 2025-03-12

Rajarshi Bharadwaj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

34 ss 17.04.2025 WPA 27082 of 2023 Pintu Shaw Vs. The Regional Manager, Purba Bardhaman Region & Ors. Ms. Suvasree Ghosh … … for the WBSEDCL Learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL submits that there is a typographical error in the order dated 12th March, 2025 and she prays for correction of the same. On perusal of the order dated 12th March, 2025 it is revealed that in the 1st page, “Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submits that the representation will be considered by the respondent No.3 within three months. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application. Respondent No.3 is requested to consider the representation made by the petitioner after granting him an opportunity of hearing and allowing him to produce necessary documents at the time of hearing and pass a reasoned order within six weeks from date” it should be read as “Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submits that the representation will be considered by the Respondent No.2, being the Divisional Manager, Burdwan South Division, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. within three months. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application. Respondent No.2, being the Divisional Manager, Burdwan South Division, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., is requested to consider the representation made by the petitioner after granting him an opportunity of hearing and allowing him to produce necessary documents at the time of hearing and pass a reasoned order within six weeks from date.” The other portion of the order dated 12th March, 2025 shall remain the same. (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) 2