Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta Tramways Co. (1978) Ltd vs State Of W.B. & Ors on 21 January, 2020
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen, Saugata Bhattacharyya
ORDER
APO No.75 of 2017
AND
APO No.76 of 2017
WITH
WP No.266 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
THE CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS CO. (1978) LTD.
Versus
STATE OF W.B. & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 21st January, 2020.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate
Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Advocate
...for the appellant.
Mr. Sirsinya Bhattacharya, Advocate
...for State respondents.
In spite of notice, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not represented even in the second call.
The appeal is arising out of an order dated 14th June 2016 passed in a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order issued by the ESI Corporation regarding recovery of dues. It appears that on 14th June 2016, when the said writ petition was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner was unable to proceed with the matter. It also appears that the matter was adjourned on numerous occasions in order to accommodate the writ petitioner. The Learned Judge was 2 completely exasperated by the inability on the part of the writ petitioner to proceed with the matter. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the said order. We feel that if the writ petitioner is unable to proceed with the matter, the Court cannot indefinitely adjourn the hearing of the writ petition, more so when there is a docket explosion and it is the duty of the Court to decide the writ applications as expeditiously as possible. However, as we have to see at times litigants behind their counsel in an adversarial system of litigation, on the basis of the submissions made by Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that there would be no repetition of what had happened in the past, we restore the writ application by setting aside the order dated 14th June 2016. We make it clear that even a single non-appearance before the Learned Single Judge would entitle the Learned Single Judge either to decide the matter on merits in absence of the writ petitioner or to dismiss the matter for non- prosecution. We also direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakh with the Registrar, High Court, Original Side within a fortnight from date as a condition precedent for availing the opportunity granted by this Court as we feel that there is a culpable negligence on the part of the writ petitioner in not proceeding with the writ petition. The Registrar, Original Side 3 shall invest the said amount in a suitable fixed deposit account. There shall be an unconditional stay of the garnishee proceedings for a period of two weeks from date. Upon deposit being made, the garnishee proceedings shall remain stayed for a further period of eight months or until further order that may be passed by the Learned Single Judge in the writ petition, subject to compliance of the earlier part of this order. In the event the said amount is not deposited within a period of fortnight from date, the order impugned shall revive and it would be open for the ESI Corporation to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
APO NO.75 of 2017 and APO No.76 of 2017 are disposed of.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S. Kumar