JUDGMENT : - This is an application for amendment of the writ petition made by the writ petitioner. The application is opposed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. After considering the submission of the respective parties, I am of the view that this application for amendment is liable to be allowed for complete adjudication of the disputes between that parties. 2. The petitioner moved the writ petition complaining of arbitrary and mala fide action of the respondents and specially the respondent No.2, the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust in making a recommendation for promoting the respondent No.5, who is junior to the petitioner, to the post of Traffic Manager or Docks Manager disregarding the case of the petitioner. It was, inter alia, contended in the writ petition that not only the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 5 but he is also highly qualified and yet the respondent No.2 arbitrarily and mala fide was trying to deprive the petitioner in the manner aforesaid by recommending the name of the respondent No.5 for such promotion. It was also the specific contention that the respondent No. 2 time and again was proceeding in gross violation of the rules and regulation and was acting wholly arbitrarily. 3. The aforesaid writ petition, after contested hearing, was dismissed by Justice D. P. Kundu on the ground that the writ petition was premature. Another writ petition was also moved by the writ petitioner, wherein, he challenged the action of the respondents, specially, respondent No. 2 in selecting another junior officer Sri Ratan Gangopadhyay disregarding the power for the post of Terminal Manager on 20th February, 1995. 4. The aforesaid writ petition, however, was allowed by Justice D. P. Kundu holding, inter alia, that the creation of the post of Terminal Manager (Shipping and Commercial) was illegal. Two appeals were preferred before the Division Bench, one by the Port Trust against allowing the writ petition and another by the present writ petitioner for dismissing his writ petition on the ground that the same was premature. 5. The appeal court by a judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1998 dismissed the appeal of the Port Trust and upholding the order of the Trial Court declaring the creating of post of Terminal Manager (Shipping and Commercial) as illegal. 6. 5. The appeal court by a judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1998 dismissed the appeal of the Port Trust and upholding the order of the Trial Court declaring the creating of post of Terminal Manager (Shipping and Commercial) as illegal. 6. So far as the other writ petition out of which the present amendment application arises namely, W.P. No. 1886 of 1995, the present petitioner made an application before the Appeal Court for taking note of certain events which happened subsequent to the 'filing of the writ petition as also subsequent to the disposal of the same by the Trial Court by dismissing the same as premature for the purpose of contending that the aforesaid facts and subsequent events will further strengthen the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 was proceeding all along mala fide with the intention to deprive the petitioner of his ligitimate claim and to favour the respondent No.5. 7. The Division Bench held the writ petition to be maintainable. However after taking into consideration of the aforesaid application for taking note of subsequent events, after accepting the contention of the petitioner that the court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction may grant appropriate relief by moulding the same in a deserving case, further held that it is always desirable that the prayers in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be as specific and definite as they can be particularly when a new cause of action arises. The Appeal Court, was, further of the view that new cause of action arose because of appointment of the respondent No. 5 to the post immediately after the writ petition was dismissed as premature and as new allegations have been made in such application the same are required to be controverted by the respondents. It is further held by the Appeal Court that although the Appeal Court itself in exceptional cases after taking note of subsequent events, may grant relief, in the instant case, the allegations of mala fide made against the Chairman being serious in nature but the said Chairman not having been impleaded in person, the same is required to be done so that he gets an opportunity to controvert the allegations and the petitioner will be at liberty" to make an application for amendment before the Trail Court. 8. 8. Pursuant to such liberty granted by the Appeal Court the present amendment writ petition has been made by the petitioner. 9. It may be noted in this connection that against the aforesaid order of the Appeal Court granting such liberty to make an application for amendment, the Port Trust preferred a special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15312-15313/98, whereupon, by an order dated 25th September, 1998, the Hon'ble Supreme Court although granted leave, refused the prayer of the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta for interim relief. It is further necessary to record that on such refusal of prayer of interim relief the application for amendment was first taken up for hearing by Justice Altamas Kabir, whereupon, by an order dated October, 1998 accepting the submission of the parties that in view of the pendency of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the petition for amending the application should not be heard although no interim relief was granted, His Lordship was pleased to direct the matter to go out of the list for the present with the liberty to the petitioner to seek clarification in the pending Special Leave Petition as to the final hearing of the application for amendment. 10. It appears, thereafter, such clarification was asked for by the writ petitioners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereupon by an order dated 3rd May, 1999 Their Lordship of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the order is perfectly clear. 11. Thereafter, the present application for amendment come up for hearing before this Court. 12. Mr. Gautam Chakraborty, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Port Trust, has opposed the prayer for amendment of the writ petition firstly on the ground that since the Special Leave Petition filed by his client is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court should not hear the application for amendment even though the prayer of his client for interim relief was refused, inasmuch as, in such event the very Special Leave Petition which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court will become infructuous. 13. I am, however, unable to accept such contention of Mr. Chakraborty. As pointed out hereinabove, the Supreme Court although granted leave, refused the prayer of interim relief. 13. I am, however, unable to accept such contention of Mr. Chakraborty. As pointed out hereinabove, the Supreme Court although granted leave, refused the prayer of interim relief. In such view of the matter, there is no bar for the High Court to consider the application for amendment. It is well settled that pendency of an appeal does not operate as a stay. 14. That apart when clarification was asked for as aforesaid, Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has held that the order does not require any clarification and the same is clear. Even though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted leave, no stay has been granted of the order of the Division Bench nor further proceedings of the writ petition has been stayed. In such view of the matter, the pendency of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, in my view, cannot be a bar for hearing the application for amendment. 15. Mr. Chakraborty has further opposed the application for amendment on the ground that by such amendment new allegations are being sought to be introduced which were not present in the original writ petition and, thereby, an attempt is being made to entirely change the nature and character of the writ proceedings. It has been contended by the amendment application, the petitioner is really trying to introduce the allegations of mala ride by the respondent No.2, which were not present in the original writ petition. I am, however, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Chakraborty. A perusal of the original writ petition itself will show that the entire case of the petitioner in the said writ petition was that not only the respondents especially the respondent No.2 being the Chairman of Port Trust was proceeding arbitrarily, illegally and in violation of rules and regulations, but also mala fide to favour the respondent No.5. 16. By the amendment application the facts which are now sought to be introduced, appears to this Court to be really further particulars of such alleged mala fide, after already pleaded in the writ petition, hence have even to the knowledge of the petitioner after filing of the writ petition and after disposal of the same by Justice D.P. Kundu. It is not, therefore, correct to say that by the amendment application the petitioners are trying to make out a new case which was not there is the writ petition. It is not, therefore, correct to say that by the amendment application the petitioners are trying to make out a new case which was not there is the writ petition. In fact it appears by the said amendment application the petitioners are incorporating in the writ application facts which took place subsequent to the filing of the writ petition as also subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition originally by the Trial Court on the ground that the same was premature. Such facts are sought to be introduced by the petitioners on the ground that such facts which came to the notice subsequent to the filing of the writ petition and disposed of the• same originally by the Trial Court only substantiate and further strengthen his original allegations made in the writ petition that the respondents especially the respondent No.2 was proceeding all along mala fide. Such facts, therefore, which were sought to be introduced by way of amendment application, in my view, are really further particulars in support of his allegations that the respondents especially the respondent No.2 were proceeding male tide and the same is certainly permissible in law. In view of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court an application for amendment has to be considered liberally. 17. It cannot also be overlooked that it has even been held by the Supreme Court, dispelling the original view that even in consistent case and even new case also can be introduced by way of amendment. 18. The present case stands on much strangers footing. 19. It has also been submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that such amendment cannot be allowed, as by such amendment Sri Bikram Sarkar who was the Chairman of the Port Trust at the relevant point of time is sought to be impleaded although he has retired long ago. 20. It is, however, wholly immaterial whether the said Chairman, Sri Bikram Sarkar has retired during the pendency of the writ petition. Since serious allegations have been made against the Chairman, the Court cannot take any cognizance of such mala fide unless the concerned respondent is impleaded by name so that he gets a reasonable opportunity to controvert such allegations. It is because of the aforesaid precise reasons of the Appeal they were of the view Sri Bikram Sarkar has to be impleaded to give him an opportunity to controvert the allegations made against him. It is because of the aforesaid precise reasons of the Appeal they were of the view Sri Bikram Sarkar has to be impleaded to give him an opportunity to controvert the allegations made against him. Whether he has retired or not in the meantime is beside the point. Since such allegation of notice has been made, he must be impleaded to give him such opportunity. His representation cannot stand in the way of the Court to consider the case mala fide against him. If such mala tide is proved his impugned action which were taken while he was in service will stand vitiated. 21. Mr. Chakraborty has also submitted that by amendment application the petitioner is seeking to introduce a number of paragraphs which are nothing but the orders passed by different Courts at different times, but the orders of the Court need not be incorporated in a writ petition by way of amendment as the same is in the Court record. 22. I have gone through the application for amendment. It appears to this Court that such orders of the Court are being sought to be incorporated by way of an amendment in view of the fact that it is the case of the petitioners that immediately after passing of certain orders of the Court the respondents made attempt to appoint the respondent No.5 which itself will also show the alleged mala fide of the respondents. 23. One of such orders which has been mentioned in the amendment application is an order passed by this Court when originally the writ petition was heard at the time of admission, when although it was mentioned before this Court by the learned Counsel on instructions that the respondents are not contemplating to give appointment and therefore, apprehension of the petitioner was without any foundation, an appointment was sought to be made indirectly which, however, ultimately was withdrawn under order of this Court. Such fact are also sought to be in support of the allegations of mala fide. Another fact which has been mentioned wherein the Court's order has been recorded that after dismissal of the writ petition holding the same to be premature on the same day the respondent No. 5 was given appointment. 24. In such view of the matter, it does not appear to this Court that the reference to the order of the Court is unnecessary. 25. 24. In such view of the matter, it does not appear to this Court that the reference to the order of the Court is unnecessary. 25. It is also pertinent to record in this connection that although the learned Counsel appearing for the Port Trust is seriously opposing the application for amendment, when the petitioners made an application before the Appeal Court for taking note of such subsequent events, the learned Counsel appearing for the Port Trust opposed such prayer submitted that the Appeal Court should not consider such submissions made on behalf of the petitioner inasmuch as no application for amendment of the writ application was filed. It was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Port Trust before the Appeal Court that the application for taking into consideration the subsequent event by itself cannot be treated to be an application for amendment of the writ petition. It was further submitted before the Appeal Court that a moulded relief may not be granted if there is a new cause of action. That is one of the reasons for which the appeal Court granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for amendment. 26. After considering all aspects of the matter, therefore, I do not find any reason why the present writ application should not be allowed for complete adjudication of dispute between the parties and to give opportunity to the petitioners to bring further particulars in support of allegations mala fide which have come into light only subsequent to the filing of the writ petition which was initially disposed of by the Trial Court on the ground that the same is premature. Such amendment should also to be allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigations inasmuch as after the order of Justice Kundu dismissing the application on the ground that the same was premature (which was set aside by the Appeal Court holding that the writ application can be maintained on genuine apprehension) a new cause of action has arisen because of the appointment of the respondent No.5 to the post immediately after disposal of the said writ application by the Trial Court. If such amendment is not allowed permitting the writ petitioner to challenge the same the result will be that the writ petitioner will have to file a fresh writ application which only lead to multiplicity of litigations. 27. If such amendment is not allowed permitting the writ petitioner to challenge the same the result will be that the writ petitioner will have to file a fresh writ application which only lead to multiplicity of litigations. 27. For the reasons stated above, the application for amendment stands allowed. Let the original writ petition being W.P. No. 1886 of 1995 be amended. The amendment prayed for shall be incorporated by the Department in the writ petition in the manner indicated in paragraph 6 of the application for amendment forthwith. 28. The writ petitioner is directed to serve copies of the amended writ application upon all the respondents including the added respondent Sri Bikram Sarkar within a week from date hereof. The respondents including Sri Bikram Sarkar are given liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition to the amended writ application within three weeks after service of the amended copy of the writ application, affidavit-in-reply to the same within a week thereafter and the matter may appear in the hearing list five weeks hence. 29. All parties to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Application stands allowed.