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 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Grand Samithy Works & Anr vs Board Of Trustees For The Port Of Kolkata ... on 4 January, 2021

Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur

Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur

January 4, 2021
   ARDR
     (11)

                                 WPA 758 of 2012

                              Grand Samithy Works & anr.
                                            Vs.
                     Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Ors.

                   Mr. Bhoopesh Sharma

                                                ... for the petitioners.

                   Mr. Ashok Kumar Jana
                                                       ... for the KOPT.


                   This writ petition has been pending since 2012.

             The matter has appeared in the list and the petitioner is

             represented by Mr. Sharma, Advocate. He prays for an

             adjournment. I find from the order sheet that the matter

             has been repeatedly adjourned on 11 March, 2020 and

             16 March, 2020.

                   The respondent KOPT is represented and submits

that the only challenge in the writ petition is to a notice dated 28 November, 2011 whereby the respondent had demanded interest @ 18% per annum. He further submits that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition the final eviction order has been passed and the petitioner has filed a fresh writ petition assailing the same. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner does not contradict the submission made on behalf of the respondent as to filing of the fresh writ petition and the 2 subsequent event of the final eviction order having been passed.

I have perused the writ petition and have heard the parties on merit.

The subsequent events which have been taken place after filing of writ petition leave no doubt in my mind that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition alive and it is evident that the petitioner is only interested in delaying the proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities.

Accordingly, WPA 758 of 2012 is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)