Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Keshov Prosad Shaw vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 January, 2023
1
03.01.2023 WPA 11326 of 2003
ssi
CAN 2 of 2022, CAN 3 of 2022
Ct 39
Keshov Prosad Shaw
-vs-
State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Debayan Bera
...for the petitioner
Mr. Ansar Mondal
Ms. Srilekha Bhattacharyya
...for the State
The present application for restoration is accompanied
by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Affidavit-in-reply and affidavit-in-opposition filed in
Court today are taken on record.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits as follows. A writ petition was filed in the
year 2003 challenging an order of rejection of a prayer for
reference for higher valuation in respect of acquisition of
land. In 2014, fresh directions were passed pursuant to
which an opposition was filed by the State respondents.
There it was admitted that money awarded was kept with the
Revenue Department. In the meantime, the Hon'ble Apex
Court passed the judgment in Pune Municipality's Case
reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183. In view of the ratio laid down
in that judgment, a fresh writ petition was filed in the year
2014. It was disposed of on 31.03.2015 relying on the
decision in Pune Municipality's Case (supra). For all
practical purposes, the first writ petition had become
infructuous. The State preferred an appeal against the order
passed in the second writ. In the meantime, the Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court overruled the ratio laid
down in Pune Municipality's Case in the judgment reported
at (2020) 8 SCC 129. The appeal preferred by the State was
accordingly allowed on 07.07.2022. However, as the first writ
petition had become infructuous after the pronouncement of
the judgment in Pune Municipality's Case (supra), the same
was finally dismissed for default on 12.04.2016 and no steps
were taken in this regard till the appeal preferred by the
State in the second writ petition was decided. At present,
after the reversal of the ratio laid down in Pune
Municipality's Case (supra), the present writ petition has
become relevant and the petitioner's rights have to be
decided in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of
the Apex Court. In such circumstances, an application for
restoration has been filed along with an application for
condonation of delay.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies
on the oppositions and submits as follows. The petitioner
has not been vigilant in pursuing his reliefs before this
Court.
It is perhaps not a question of being vigilant about
pursuing one's reliefs before this Court. In the peculiar
circumstances of the instant case, by dint of a judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014, the first writ
petition had practically become infructuous and the
petitioner was persuing his rights through the second writ
petition and after reversal of the decision by a Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the situation became
different. The petitioner did follow the normal course by
defending the appeal. It was only thereafter that the present
restoration along with the application for condonation of
delay could have been filed and was filed.
In such exceptional circumstances, this Court is of the
view that the petitioner had made out a case for condonation
of delay and restoration of the first writ petition.
Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the writ
petition is restored to its original file and number.
CAN 2 of 2022 and CAN 3 of 2022 are disposed of.
Let this matter appear in the list after a week.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be
delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied
for, upon compliance of all formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
