Shri.P.Kannan v. The Deputy Commissioner And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/60/2025 IA No.CAN/1/2025 Shri. P.Kannan Vs The Deputy Commissioner and others Mr. N.A.Khan ... for the appellant Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the respondents January 07, 2026 [AKB] Item No.5 RE: CAN/1/2025 The present appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in WPA/274/2023 dated 2nd July, 2024 whereby the learned Single Judge while condoning the delay dismissed the writ petition on merits inter alia holding the same. "I have considered the materials on record. Writ petitioner had applied for information under the Right to Information Act, but the same was not provided to him. He preferred the appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the said authority on December 29, 2015 directed the APIO(Settlement) and Deputy Secretary (RR) to provide requisite information within one month from the date of first hearing.

Pursuant thereto, by a letter dated January 25, 2016 signed by respondent no.4 as Tehsildar (Settlement) requisite information was given. It is not the case of the petitioner that the information was false. It is his grievance that respondent no.4 who was posted as Surveyor and illegally personated as Tehsildar (Settlement) and issued the letter.

Respondents have offered an explanation in that regard. They claim that the respondent no.4 was instructed to act as Tehsildar (Settlement) in the latter's absence to dispose of the urgent and time bound cases like the present one. The explanation offered is plausible one."

The petitioner aggrieved of this has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filling the present appeal. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has

been filed. The office has reported delay of 452 days. The reason of delay as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the medical grounds.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aged around 74 years and was suffering from various medical ailments, which incapacitated him from filing the appeal within the time.

We have perused the record filed along with the application for condonation of delay. The medical documents filed by the petitioner discloses that the petitioner was admitted in Kovai Medical Center and Hospital Limited, Coimbatore and remained admitted from 26.10.2024 to 29.10.2024. Subsequent thereto the medical documents filed by the appellant indicates the documents of 25th May, 2025.

The Constitutional Courts have time and again held that the Courts may take liberal view in condoning the delay if there is sufficient reason explained for the condonation of delay. We have taken into account the fact that the petitioner is an aged person of around 74 years and has filed medical documents. Thus taking into account the entire facts and circumstances and the reasons explained, in the interest of justice the delay is condoned.

RE: MAT/60/2025 Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned Single Judge has meticulously examined the points raised by the petitioner. The substratum of the case of the appellant is that he had applied for information under the Right to

Information Act, 2005. The said information was supplied to him in the second round of proceeding. However, the grievance of the petitioner was that the official, who provided the information was posted as Surveyor and illegally personated himself as Tehsildar (Settlement) while providing the information. Thus, he was not the authorized officer to provide the information.

Learned Single Judge had duly considered the explanation and recorded that the respondent No.4 i.e. the officer who supplied the information, was instructed to act as Tehsildar (Settlement) in the latter's absence to dispose of the urgent and time bound cases like the present one. The explanation offered was accepted as plausible one by the learned Single Judge. It is also a fact that the information sought for has been provided to the appellant/petitioner. In an intra Court letters patent appeal palpable illegality or infirmity is the main ground for interference. We do not find any palpable illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. We are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present appeal, hence the appeal is dismissed. (Arindam Mukherjee, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)