Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ghanashyam Shaw vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2024
1
05.04.2024
Court No. 35
D.Hira
WPA 17767 of 2016
With
CAN 1 of 2023
With
CAN 2 of 2023
With
CAN 3 of 2024
Ghanashyam Shaw
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Ujjal Ray,
Mr. Arpa Chakraborty.
... for the petitioner
Mr. Shaunak Ghosh.
... for the Railways
The matter has come up in the list at the instance of
the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has preferred three
applications being CAN 1 of 2023, CAN 2 of 2023 and
CAN 3 of 2024.
CAN 2 of 2023 is with a prayer for restoration of the
writ petition being W.P.A. no. 17767 of 2016, which has
earlier been dismissed for default vide Court's order dated
11th July, 2023. CAN 1 of 2023 is under Section 5 of
Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing CAN
2 of 2023.
Mr. Ujjal Ray, learned counsel is appearing for the
applicant/writ petitioner. He has pointed out to the fact
that in the midst of pending of this writ petition, his
clients have been dispossessed from the concerned shop
room and had been forced to leave the perishable goods
within that.
2
It is further stated that for the writ petition having
been dismissed for default, the petitioner would have no
active role or intention behind the same. He seeks that
the writ petition be restored and petitioner be allowed to
contest in this matter. Otherwise, the writ petitioner
shall be immensely prejudiced, he says.
Another application being CAN 3 of 2024 is also
preferred by the writ petitioner in which he has sought for
reviving the interim order of stay of proceeding, earlier
granted by this Court dated 09.09.2016, in the writ
petition as mentioned above.
Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, learned counsel appears on
behalf of the Railway Authorities and has put forth strong
objections. He has stated that after dismissal of the writ
petition and due compliance of the statutory provisions,
the present writ petitioner has been duly evicted from the
concerned property.
According to him, it is now an ulterior intention of
the writ petitioner, having not been succeeded in the
eviction process, to come to this Court for restoration of
his dismissed writ petition. He has further stated that
from the submissions of the applicant/writ petitioner, in
CAN 3 of 2024, it is sufficiently evident that in spite of
having knowledge of dismissal of the writ petition for
default, at the very inception, the writ petitioner has not
taken any steps for restoration of the same within due
time. That the same amounts to be his intentional
latches and uncleaned hands, with which, he has
approached this Court.
3
He informs the Court that the due process of eviction
of the applicant/writ petitioner was concluded and he has
been evicted with effect from 3rd April, 2024 from the shop
room.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the
respective submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is
found prudent to direct the respondent authorities to file
affidavit-in-opposition with respect to CAN 1 of 2023, CAN 2 of 2023. Since prayer of the applicant, in CAN 3 of 2024 can only be considered, after the case is restored in its original file, let the same be kept with the records.
Affidavit-in-opposition, as above, shall be filed, within a period of one week from the date.
Affidavit-in-reply, if any, to same, by the applicant shall be filed within a period of one week thereafter.
Let the matter appear in the list again on 23rd April, 2024.
In the meantime, however, since it is understood that the perishable goods have been kept in the said shop room by the applicant/writ petitioner, the authorities are directed to take appropriate steps for allowing the writ petitioner/applicant to take out the perishable goods kept by him in the said shop room. This exercise shall be concluded, within the shortest possible time.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)