Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manju Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 March, 2023
31.03.2023
Item No.01
Court No.32
Avijit Mitra
MAT 1132 of 2019
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No.CAN 11855 of 2019)
with
IA No. CAN 2 of 2019 (Old No.CAN 11856 of 2019)
with
IA No. CAN 3 of 2022
with
IA No. CAN 4 of 2022
Manju Ghosh
- Versus -
State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Biswajit De,
Ms. Rajlakshmi Ghatak,
Ms. Mallika Manna
...for the appellant
Mr. Bipin Ghosh,
Mr. Jahar Dutta
....for the State
Ms. Mitali Bhattacharya
....for the WBSEDCL
The present appeal has been preferred challenging
the order dated 7th March, 2016 passed in a writ petition
being W.P. No.429 (W) of 2016. In connection with the
appeal, an application for condonation of delay being IA No.
CAN 2 of 2019 (Old No.CAN 11856 of 2019) and an
application for stay being IA No. CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No.
CAN 11855 of 2019) were filed.
The appeal came up for hearing before a Coordinate
Bench of this Court on 4 th March, 2020, when no one
appeared on behalf of the appellant and as such the appeal
being MAT No.1132 of 2019 was dismissed for default. An
2
application being IA No. CAN 4 of 2022 was filed with a
prayer to recall the order dated 4th March, 2020. Along with
the said application, an application for condonation of
delay being IA No.CAN 3 of 2022 was also filed.
Mr. De, learned advocate appearing for the appellant
submits that the appellant is an aged lady and she was in
the dark about dismissal of the appeal for default on 4 th
March, 2020. She also could not keep contact with her
learned advocate due to the pandemic. After the pandemic
restrictions were over she contacted her learned advocate
and came to learn about the order of dismissal dated 4 th
March, 2020, in the month of August, 2022. Immediately
thereafter, a restoration application being IA No. CAN 4 of
2022 along with an application for condonation of delay
being IA No.CAN 3 of 2022 was filed.
Mr. De further submits that the period from 15th
March, 2020 till 28th February, 2022 is not required to be
taken into account for calculating the period of delay in
view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
It appears that the appellant was prevented from
taking immediate steps due to the prevailing pandemic
situation. Considering such fact and the fact that she is an
aged lady and cannot be made to suffer for the laches of
her learned advocate, we condone the delay in preferring
the restoration application and recall the order dated 4 th
3
March, 2020. The appeal being MAT 1132 of 2019 is
restored to its original file and number.
The applications being IA No. CAN 3 of 2022 and IA
No. CAN 4 of 2022 are, accordingly, disposed of.
As regards the delay in preferring the appeal, Mr. De
submits that the writ petition was preferred on 6 th January,
2016 inter alia praying for replacement of the damaged
bamboo pole which was erected for extending electricity
lines to the appellant's premise. Surprisingly, after
preference of the said writ petition, the appellant's
electricity connection was discontinued from 3rd October,
2018 and upon approaching the authorities she came to
learn that her writ petition had been disposed of on 7 th
March, 2016. Thereafter, the long vacation intervened and
some time was spent for obtaining the certified copy. In
such circumstances, the delay needs to be condoned.
The delay, which had occasioned, is neither mala
fide nor intentional and it cannot be said that the appellant
adopted dilatory tactics. In view thereof, the delay in
preferring the appeal is condoned and the application being
IA No. CAN 2 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 11856 of 2019) is
disposed of.
Mr. De submits that the writ petition was disposed of
directing the Station Manager, Burdwan Customer Care
Centre, Sector-III to erect a pole through an alternative
route for granting electricity connection to the appellant,
without granting any opportunity to the appellant to file
4
any exception to the report of the licensee company being
WBSEDCL.
Such contention has, however, been disputed by Ms.
Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the
WBSEDCL. She submits that the bamboo pole which was
erected for extending electricity lines to the appellant's
premise had been damaged and replacement of the
damaged bamboo pole would not be safe.
She further submits, upon instruction, that the
electricity connection may be granted to the appellant upon
drawing wires from the nearest LT pole from which service
has been effected in favour of the appellant's son, who is
residing with the appellant at the same premises. Let the
written instruction, as obtained through whatsapp by Ms.
Bhattacharya, be kept on record.
List the matter for further consideration in the daily
supplementary list of this Court on 17th April, 2023.
In the meantime the respondent nos. 5 and 6 shall
take all necessary steps to grant electricity connection to
the appellant upon drawing wires from the nearest LT pole
from which service has been effected in favour of the
appellant's son.
The respondent no.5 shall file a report on the
returnable date as regards the steps taken on the basis of
this order.
There shall be no order as to costs
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order
duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
