Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Debabrata Tiwari vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 August, 2019

The State Of West Bengal vs Debabrata Tiwari on 3 March, 2023

The said appeals were heard and allowed by a common impugned judgement dated 30th September, 2019, passed in MAT 859 of 2018 with CAN 6137 of 2018 in the case of Debabrata Tiwari vs. The State of West Bengal. By way of the impugned judgment, the Director of Local Bodies, Burdwan Municipality and the concerned authority in Ranaghat and Habra Municipalities were directed to consider the application made by the Writ Petitioners seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The Division Bench of the High Court also identified the scheme in light of which the said applications would have to be considered and decided. Hence the present appeals by the State of West Bengal. 2.10. The pertinent findings of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta, in the common impugned judgment dated 30th September, 2019, have been culled out hereinunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 117 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document

Ayan Sen vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 December, 2025

41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the 46 appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent- writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17-3-2015 [Debabrata Tiwari v. State of W.B., WPA No. 3243 of 2015, order dated 17-3-2015 (Cal)] , whereby the writ petition filed by some of the respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the respondent- writ petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shir Gopal Saran And Anr vs M D R S R T C And Anr (2026:Rj-Jp:2044) on 16 January, 2026

41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent- writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17-3-2015 [Debabrata Tiwari v. State of W.B., WPA No. 3243 of 2015, order dated 17-3-2015 (Cal)], whereby the writ petition filed by some of the respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the respondent- writ petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharat Singh S/O- Late Shri Ramesh Chand vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 11 February, 2026

41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent- writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17-3-2015 [Debabrata Tiwari v. State of W.B., WPA No. 3243 of 2015, order dated 17-3-2015 (Cal)], whereby the writ petition filed by some of the respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the respondent- writ petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahul Kumar Meena Son Of Late Shri Babu ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:6950) on 12 February, 2026

41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent- writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17-3-2015 [Debabrata Tiwari v. State of W.B., WPA No. 3243 of 2015, order dated 17-3-2015 (Cal)], whereby the writ petition filed by some of the respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the respondent- writ petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mintu Ram Yadav S/O Late Shri Kanwar ... vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 19 February, 2026

41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17-3-2015 [Debabrata Tiwari v. State of W.B., WPA No. 3243 of 2015, order dated 17-3-2015 (Cal)], whereby the writ petition filed by some of the respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manthan Kumar S/O Mahender C/O ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 March, 2026

41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent- writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17-3-2015 [Debabrata Tiwari v. State of W.B., WPA No. 3243 of 2015, order dated 17-3-2015 (Cal)], whereby the writ petition filed by some of the respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the respondent- writ petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amar Singh Meena S/O Late Shri Chhail ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:10503) on 12 March, 2026

41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent- writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17-3-2015 [Debabrata Tiwari v. State of W.B., WPA No. 3243 of 2015, order dated 17-3-2015 (Cal)], whereby the writ petition filed by some of the respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the respondent- writ petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tanish Meena S/O Late Shri Bala Baksh vs Chief Engineer (2026:Rj-Jp:10802) on 13 March, 2026

41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High (Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 10:29:30 AM) (Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:52:47 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:10802] (8 of 11) [CW-4135/2026] Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17-3-2015 [Debabrata Tiwari v. State of W.B., WPA No. 3243 of 2015, order dated 17-3-2015 (Cal)], whereby the writ petition filed by some of the respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pradyuman vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 16 July, 2025

41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17-3-2015 [Debabrata Tiwari v. State of W.B., WPA No. 3243 of 2015, order dated 17-3-2015 (Cal)] , whereby the writ petition filed by some of the respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next