A single judge restored an application to its original file and recalled a specific order dated 17th May 2023 after accepting the petitioner's explanation for inaction, thereby discharging the interim relief granted.
The application was restored to its original file; the order dated 17th May 2023 was recalled; the interim order stands restored.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
14.06.2023 tkm/ct 236 sl 92
C.R.R 618 of 2017 CRAN 10 of 2023
In Re : Rabi Sankar Dalai …….. petitioner
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee Mr. Soumya Nag Mr. Bimalendu Das Mr. S. Das
…… for the petitioner
Mr. Madhusudan Sur Mr. Dipankar Paramanick …… for the State
Heard Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Paramanick for the State.
Explanation set out in the application indicates that the petitioner cannot be said to have any role to play in the situation when the order dated 17th May 2023 was passed.
Learned counsel could not reach when the matter was called for hearing.
I am of the view that inaction on the part of the petitioner has been sufficiently explained and accepting such explanation I am inclined to restore the application to its original file and number recalling the order dated 17th May 2023.
Consequent thereupon, the interim order stands restored. CRAN 10 of 2023 is disposed of.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's inaction warrants restoration of the application to its original file.
Rabi Sankar Dalai
The State
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
