Satish Kumar Sharma vs Union of India and Others

It is pointed out by Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy, learned advocate for the respondents that there is a typographical error in recording the date of delivery of the judgment in MAT 325 of 2015 (Satish Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.). Submission is though the judgment was delivered on ''17.8.2015'', however, the date of the judgment has been recorded as ''16.8.2015'' which was Sunday. We find that submission of the learned advocate is correct. Therefore, let the date of the judgment be read as ''17.8.2015'' instead of ''16.8.2015'', as recorded. Accordingly, the date of the judgment is corrected by us in red ink in the original copy of the judgment.

Since the judgment has been uploaded in the official server of the High Court, the learned Registrar General and the learned Registrar (Listing) are directed to rectify the said mistake in the official server of the High Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties on priority basis.