Santosh Kumar Das v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE 02 18.8.2025 Sc Ct. no.2 WPA 26917 OF 2023 with I.A. No. CAN 1 OF 2024 ----------- Santosh Kumar Das Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Gobindadas Mitra .....For the Applicant/ Writ Petitioner Ms. Poulami Chattopadhyay .....For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 Re : I.A. No. CAN 1 OF 2024 -------------- Mr. Gobindadas Mitra, learned Advocate appears for the applicant/writ petitioner.
Ms. Poulami Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate appears for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
The prayers from the application are quoted below : "a) Your Lordship would be pleased to recall the order passed on 02.07.2024 dismissing the writ application being W.P.A. 26917 of 2023;
b) And to pass such other order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper."
The sole and whole submission made by the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/writ petitioner is that, the writ petition filed by the applicant was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches by a coordinate Bench by its order dated July 2, 2024,
Annexure-P3 at page 10 to the writ petition but on the selfsame set of facts and on the selfsame issue around a week thereafter the same coordinate Bench had allowed an identical writ petition. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in the said writ petition, which was allowed, subsequently learned Advocate for the WBTCL (for short the Corporation) has submitted that they were agreeable to pay the interest and, accordingly, that writ petition was allowed.
On the above plea the applicant/writ petitioner prays for recalling of the said order dated July 2, 2024 and submits that, the said writ petition should be allowed.
Ms. Poulomi Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation has opposed this application vehemently. She submits that, neither the alleged order of the coordinate Bench in which an identical writ petition has been allowed nor any document in support of the contention of the applicant/writ petitioner that the Corporation has agreed to pay the interest, are available on record.
Per contra, learned Advocate for the applicant/writ petitioner submits that, the submission was made through virtual mode on behalf of the Corporation. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record it appears to this Court that no supporting material has been disclosed
by the applicant/writ petitioner in the instant application to support his plea for recalling of the order dated July 2, 2024.
Inasmuch as, on perusal of the averments made in the application and the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/writ petitioner, it appears to this Court that the instant application is totally baseless and frivolous one and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. In view of the above, this application, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 stands dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to be paid in favour of the benevolent fund, Bar Association, High Court at Calcutta positively within a period of seven days from date.
(Aniruddha Roy, J.)