Calcutta High Court
MAT/80/2026 of MARY JACINTA TOPPO Vs THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS on 29 July 2026
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/80/2026 Mary Jacinta Toppo Vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Ms. Sweta Yadav [through virtual mode] Mr. Pardeshia Munda … for the appellant Ms. Babita Das … for the respondents July 29, 2026 [SR] Item
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]
***
MAT/80/2026
Mary Jacinta Toppo
Vs
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others
Ms. Sweta Yadav
[through virtual mode]
Mr. Pardeshia Munda
… for the appellant
Ms. Babita Das
… for the respondents
July 29, 2026
[SR]
Item No.9
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 30th June, 2026. The Single Bench, noting that the report of the Special Officer contained illegible documents, requested the Special Officer to furnish legible copies of the same to the writ petitioner to enable him to file an objection thereto.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues before this Court that there are no reasons recorded that the Single Bench for extending the interim order already passed the original interim order does not find place in the pleadings in the appeal.
3. A copy of the said order dated 4th April, 2024 has been handed over to the respondent which contains sufficient reasons. The said order has not been challenged by the appellant.
4. The extension was warranted and justified since the report of the Special Officer contained legible documents, and the main matter cannot be heard by the Single Bench without the written objection of the writ petitioner. In such a situation no other reasons are required to be recorded, by the Court, for extending the interim order.
5. This Court therefore sees no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is considered totally frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.
6. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to impose costs except to warn the appellant against such frivolous appeals, in future.
( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )
( Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)