Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
‐ vs ‐ on 3 January, 2018
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1 03.01.201847
p.d.
W.P.L.R.T No.89 of 2017 Jagannath Das & Ors.
‐Vs‐ The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rabilal Moitra,Ld. Sr. Advocate, Mr. Tarak Nath Dutta .... For the petitioners.
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Mr. Lal Mohan Basu ... For the State.
This writ application has been filed by the petitioners assailing three consecutive orders passed in two respective original applications. Out of the above, the first one dated June 15, 2016 was passed in connection with the miscellaneous application bearing M.A. 833 of 2004 arising out of O.A. No.574 of 2002(LRTT). The second one was the order dated June 15, 2016 passed for disposal of the original application bearing O.A. No.4218 of 2015 (LRTT). The third one was the order dated March 30, 2017 passed in connection with the miscellaneous application bearing M.A. 684 of 2016 arising out of the original application being O.A. 4218 of 2015 (LRTT).
Having heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that so far as the first order was concerned, the same was passed in connection with an application filed under the Contempt of Courts Act for alleged willful 2 disobedience of the order of disposal of O.A. No.574 of 2002. The above order was passed with the observation that since a new cause of action had arisen and a new original application bearing O.A. No.4218 of 2015 had been filed, nothing remained in the contempt application. We do not find any error with that observation of the learned Tribunal.
So far as the second order dated June 15, 2016 passed in connection with O.A. No.4218 of 2015(LRTT) is concerned, we find that the matter was disposed of after hearing both the parties giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the statutory appellate authority for assailing the order impugned to the original application. Further liberty was given to the petitioners to file an application for condonation of delay in filing such statutory appeal. Though an attempt was made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in course of his submission before us that it was an order passed behind the back of the petitioners, we are not inclined to accept that submission in view of the admitted fact that no statement was made in this writ application in support thereof. However, after considering the above order, we find that liberties were granted to the petitioners, as recorded hereinabove. Since the time to prefer a statutory appeal together with an application for condonation of delay has already been expired, there is no bar and/or impediment to extend 3 that time and save and except the above modification, further interference with the above order, is not required.
So far as the third order, i.e., the order dated March 30, 2017 is concerned, we do not find any reason to interfere with that order. If we accept that there is no ground to substantiate the statement that the order of disposal of the original application bearing O.A. No.4218 of 2015 (LRTT) was passed behind the back of the petitioners, then there could be no scope to interfere with that order also. In view of the discussions and the observations made hereinabove, we extend the time mentioned in the order dated June 15, 2016 passed in O.A. No.4218 of 2015 (LRTT) to prefer an statutory appeal together with an application for condonation of delay, within a period of fortnight from date. The writ application stands disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties at an early date.
( Debasish Kar Gupta, J. ) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J. ) 4