Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Raj Kumar Saraogi & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 January, 2025
17.01.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ct. no.39 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Sl. Nos.1 (Appellate Side)
ss ,,
WPA 23429 of 2006
CAN 1 of 2024
CAN 2 of 2024
,
Raj Kumar Saraogi & ors.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Chayan Gupta
Mr. Sayantan Chatterjee
... for the applicants/petitioners
Mr. Chandi Charan De, Ld. AGP
Mr. Anirban Sarkar
... for the State
Re : CAN 2 of 2024
Affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition of the
respondent no.2 filed by the applicants/petitioners is
taken on record.
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the instant writ petition has been filed challenging an acquisition proceeding of the year 2006. Thereafter, directions were issued for the State-respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition. In the meantime, on 20th July, 2015 the writ petition was dismissed for default since none of the parties appeared when the matter was called on. The applicants who are legal heirs of the original 2 petitioner no.1 were unaware of the order of dismissal. Further, he submits that the petitioner no.1, Raj Kumar Saraogi was the person who used to look after the legal proceedings of the family. Due to his chronic ailment since 2015 and his death on 14th November, 2018, requisite steps could not be taken for restoration of the writ petition since the applicants were unaware of the order of dismissal. In the meantime, the parties tried to sell out the property within Dag No.4449 and they were informed by the broker of the notification floated by West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (WBHIDCO) dated 9th August, 2023 for construction of International, Intra-State, Inter-State and Inter-City State of the Art Bus Terminus-cum- Commercial/Business Complex having World Class Airport like facilities ON PPP MODEL at Plot No.11D/39, Action Area-IID, New Town, Kolkata. On searching of records, thereafter, the petitioners/applicants came to learn of the order of dismissal and subsequent thereto application has been filed for restoration of the writ petition along with an application for condonation of delay. There was/is no laches on the part of the applicants in taking steps for restoration of the writ petition. To buttress his contentions, he relies on an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation & anr. -versus- Derby Sales Pvt. Ltd. & ors. (APOT 590 of 2015). He seeks for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 3
On the contrary, Mr. Chandi Charan De, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits that there is no day-to-day explanation of delay in the application for condonation of delay and therefore, the grounds spelt out in the application for condonation of delay does not merit consideration. He submits that the application should be dismissed in limine.
It is contended categorically that the petitioner no.1, Raj Kumar Saraogi used to look after the proceeding. The said Raj Kumar Saraogi expired on 14th November, 2018 after severe chronic ailment. It is also contended that the petitioners did not have any clue about the ongoing litigation, since they were not in familiarity with the writ petition. Further, it is also contended that when a broker was appointed for selling of the property through him the petitioners came across a proposal of the State Government to set up a commercial complex cum bus terminal at Dag No.4449 on Public Private Partnership (PPP) Basis for which an Expression of Interest had been published on 9th August, 2023 by the West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (WBHIDCO). It is only after December, 2023 that the petitioners/applicants started searching and came to learn of order of dismissal passed on 20th July, 2015.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision passed in Mool Chandra versus Union of India and Another 4 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878 observed as follows:
"20. Be that as it may. On account of liberty having been granted to the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, yet another O.A. No. 2066 of 2020 along with an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the impugned order came to be passed. No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned."
Bearing in mind the above proposition, considering the submission advanced and also taking into consideration the above contentions made in the application, this Court finds that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay of 9 years 3 months.
Accordingly, such delay in filing the application for restoration stands condoned.
Accordingly, the application being CAN 2 of 2024 stands allowed.
Re: CAN 1 of 2024 This is an application for restoration of the writ petition.
In view of the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, this Court finds that sufficient cause has been made out for restoration. Hence, the order of dismissal dated 20th July, 2015 is hereby recalled.
The application being CAN 1 of 2024 stands allowed.
5
The writ petition being WPA 23429 of 2006 is restored to its original file and number.
Re : WPA 23429 of 2006 List the matter on 12th February, 2025.
< (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)