Sujit Tikader vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4236 Cal

14.07.2023
Item No.277
Court No.550
Saswata
                                      W.P.A. 9727 of 2016
                                              With
                                        CAN 1 of 2023
                                               +
                                        CAN 2 of 2023

                                        Sujit Tikader
                                             -vs-
                               The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                        Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder
                                             ...For the applicant/petitioner
                        Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh
                                                    ...For the respondents

In re : CAN 2 of 2023

1. This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation

Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), praying for

condonation of delay in filing CAN 1 of 2023 which is an

application for recalling of the order dated 5th July 2016

passed in W.P.A. 9727 of 2016.

2. Records would reveal that despite obtaining direction for

filing of affidavit, no affidavit-in-opposition to the

aforesaid application has been filed.

3. Heard Mr. Majumder learned advocate representing the

applicant. Heard Mr. Ghosh representing the

respondent opposing the application. Mr. Ghosh

submits that this court ought not to condone the delay

since there is an enormous delay. In support of his

contention that in case of delay and latches, application

should not be entertained he places reliance on a

judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of University of Delhi vs. Union of India & Ors. 1

(2013) SCC 735

4. Having taken note of the submission made by the

learned advocates appearing for the respective parties

and judgment cited by Mr. Ghosh, I am of the view that

whether or not a delay has been appropriately explained

would depend upon the fact of the case. It is well settled

that a judgment is an authority for what it decides, a

slight variation in facts may alter the final outcome. The

aforesaid judgment delivered the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of University of Delhi (Supra) does not

assist the respondents.

5. From the statement made in the application and after

considering the submission, I am satisfied with the

explanation given by the applicant.

6. In view thereof, the delay in filing the application for

restoration is condoned and CAN application being CAN

No. 2 of 2023 is allowed.

In re : CAN 2 of 2023

1. This is an application, inter alia, praying for recall of the

order dated 5th July 2016 dismissing the writ

application and for restoration of the writ application

being W.P.A. 9727 of 2016.

2. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective

parties and considered the materials on record. I find

that the applicant/petitioner has been able to explain

that he was prevented by sufficient cause for non-

appearance before this Court on 5th July 2016 when

the writ application was dismissed for default.

3. In view thereof, the order dated 5th July 2016 is recalled

and the writ application being W.P.A. 9727 of 2016 is

restored to its original file and location.

4. CAN 1 of 2023 is disposed of.

In re : WPA 9727 of 2016

1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective

parties.

2. Mr. Ghosh learned advocate appearing the respondent

prays for leave to file an affidavit in opposition.

3. In view thereof, let affidavit in opposition to the writ

application be filed within three weeks from date. Reply,

if any, thereto to be filed within a week thereafter.

4. List this matter under the heading "to be mentioned"

on 22nd August, 2023.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)