Tushar Kanti Dutta & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 477 Cal

Court No. 24                     W.P.A. 10029 of 2010
10.02.2022                                With
(Item No. 235)
                                     CAN 3 of 2020
                                          With
(AB)                                 CAN 4 of 2020
                                 (via video conference)

                              Tushar Kanti Dutta & Ors.
                                          VS
                            The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                      Mr. Pratip Mukherjee
                                             ........ for the petitioners
                      Mr. B. P. Vaisya
                      Mr. Gourav Das
                                   ...... for respondent Nos. 4 and 5

Mr. Jahar Lal De Ms. Debarati Sen (Bose) ........ for the State

CAN 3 of 2020 is an application praying for

restoration of the order dated 6th February, 2020. It

appears that the application is an incomplete one. There

are blanks in the application which are not filled up. The

writ petition was originally dismissed by the Court on 4th

August, 2010.

The petitioners, instead of taking steps for restoration

of the writ petition, filed a fresh writ petition being W.P.

10142 (W) of 2011, which stood dismissed by an order

dated 29th August, 2013.

An appeal was carried out from the said order of

dismissal and by a judgment dated 12th May, 2017 passed

in MAT 1507 of 2013 the Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed

the said appeal. The Hon'ble Division Bench, however, was

pleased to grant liberty to the appellants to seek recall of

the order of dismissal dated 4th August, 2010, in

accordance with law.

The application for restoration filed by the petitioners

pursuant to the leave granted by the Hon'ble Division

Bench was also dismissed for default on 6th February,

2020. Thereafter the present application for restoration

was filed by the petitioners in December, 2020 along with

an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the

application for restoration.

I have perused the averments made in both the

applications and am not at all satisfied with the grounds

mentioned therein.

It appears that the petitioners are not at all interested

to proceed with the writ petition in the right earnest.

Reference has been made in respect of the advocate who

appeared in the writ petition. It does not appear that the

petitioners acted in accordance with the advice given by

the learned advocate. They proceeded in the matter with a

very casual and lackadaisical approach.

The conduct of the petitioners cannot be supported by

the Court. Restoration of restoration applications is not

maintainable in law. The application for restoration being

CAN 3 of 2020 stands dismissed.

As a consequence, application praying for

condonation of the delay in filing the application for recall

being CAN 4 of 2020 also stands dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties after completion of all

legal formalities.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)