Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Serajuddin vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 December, 2014
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
15.12.2014
ac
F.M.A. 610 of 2013
Md. Serajuddin
-versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rafiqul Islam,
Ms. Indrani Nandi.
... For the Appellant/Applicant.
Re : CAN 8534 of 2014.
This mandamus appeal was dismissed for default on 19th March, 2014 due to non-
appearance of the appellant. Subsequently, this application has been taken out
by the appellant for restoration of the said appeal on 19th August, 2014.
It is stated in the said application that the learned advocate of the appellant
could not appear before the Appeal Court on 19th March, 2014 due to his personal
difficulty.
Since a litigant should not suffer for the fault of his lawyer, we are inclined
to allow the appellant's application for restoration of this appeal.
The appellant's application for restoration of the appeal is, thus, allowed.
The order of dismissal of the appeal passed by the other Division Bench of this
Court on 19th March, 2014 is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original
file.
Re : F.M.A. No. 610 of 2013.
Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal.
The legality and/or propriety of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of
this Court on 16th August, 2012 in W.P. No. 11461(W) of 2010 is under challenge
in this mandamus appeal at the instance of the appellant. By the impugned
order, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the Executive
Officer/Block Development Officer, Kaliachak-II, the respondent no 5 therein, to
review his order by passing a reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of presenting a copy of the certified copy of the said order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and the respondent nos. 6 & 7. It was also mentioned in the said order that while taking the ultimate decision on the petitioner's grievance, the respondent no. 5 will take its own decision without being influenced by the order passed on 29th April, 2010.
We are informed by the learned advocate of the appellant that pursuant to such direction passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the grievance of the petitioner was reviewed with participation of the appellant and ultimately the concerned authority passed a reasoned order on 13th May, 2013. Since the order which is impugned in this appeal has been implemented with the participation of the appellant, we feel that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this appeal alive any more.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with this rider that in the event the appellant feels aggrieved against the order dated 13th May, 2013 passed by the concerned Block Development Officer, Kaliachak-II, the order disposing of this appeal will not preclude the writ petitioner/appellant from challenging the said order in accordance with law.
The appeal is, thus, disposed of.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.) (Tapash Mookherjee, J.)