Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 50]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Pradip Kumar Karak & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 30 October, 2014

Author: Ashim Kumar Banerjee

Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee

                                                          1


  (09)
30.10.2014
  (p.j.)



                        COA 384 of 2006
                             With
                        CAN 7695 of 2014 (Sec. 5)
                             With
                        CAN 7694 of 2014 (Restoration)
                             With
                        CAN 7696 of 2014 (Appro. Order)

                        Pradip Kumar Karak & Ors.
                               -Versus-
                        State of West Bengal & Ors.


                 Mr. Guru Saday De
                                                ... For the Appellants

                 Mr. Md. Hasanuz Zaman
                                              ... For the WBSEDCL

                 Mr. Md. Yasin Ali
                                       ... For the Respondent no. 3

The appellants preferred the above appeal against the order dated September 25, 2000. Similarly circumstanced persons also preferred identical appeals being appeal no. FMA 119 of 2002. The Division Bench set aside the order dated September 25, 2000. The State preferred Special Leave Petition, that also was dismissed on March 06, 2014. The application for review was also dismissed.

The appellants did not take any step in their appeal. The appellants filed this appeal on January 03, 2001 as defective, despite being pointed out by the department and despite order of the Division Bench, the appellants did not remove the defect. Ultimately the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on September 25, 2006. It is only after the other proceedings reached 2 finality at the Apex Court stage. The appellants filed application for restoration on August 01, 2014.

Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/applicants, would contend that he was not aware. He would rely upon paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 where he would complain of his physical ailment without giving any particulars. Since the learned counsel claims, he was physically unwell, we accept his submission. Yet, we wonder how could the appellants keep themselves in a deep slumber for 14 years, particularly when their rights were being ventilated in the proceedings.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed. All the connected applications being CAN 7695 of 2014, CAN 7694 of 2014 and CAN 7696 of 2014 are also dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.

( Banerjee, J.) (Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)