The State of West Bengal and Anr. Vs Electrosteel Castings Ltd. and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The State of West Bengal and Anr. Vs Electrosteel Castings Ltd. and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing both appeals condoned; both appeals and the connected stay applications stand disposed of as nothing survives following the Director of Industries' compliance; the respondents/writ petitioners are left free to challenge the Director of Industries' decision dated 30.10.2024 in the manner known to law; the legal issues raised in the appeals are left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the substantial delays in preferring the two appeals against the Single Bench order dated 25.09.2023 in WPO 2336/2022 (346 days by WBIDCL; 208 days by the State of West Bengal) should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

The delay in filing both appeals (346 days by WBIDCL; 208 days by the State of West Bengal) is condoned, considering certain subsequent developments and being satisfied with the reasons given.

Ratio / Principle

Since the authority (respondent No.2, the Director of Industries) has already complied with the order of the learned Single Bench and taken a decision, nothing survives in either appeal to be decided.

Key takeaways

It is well open to the respondents/writ petitioners to challenge the decision of the Director of Industries, West Bengal dated 30.10.2024 in the manner known to law.ratio¶24
The legal issues raised in these appeals are left open.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Original Side), decided 26th March, 2025 (T.S. Sivagnanam, CJ and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J). Two time-barred appeals — APOT/357/2024 by West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited (delay 346 days) and APOT/213/2024 by the State of West Bengal (delay 208 days) — against the learned Single Bench order dated 25th September 2023 in WPO 2336/2022, whereby the Director of Industries (respondent No.2) was directed to reconsider the writ petitioners' application for amendment of their Registration Certificate, taking into consideration all documents produced, and to pass a reasoned order within a time-frame. The delays were condoned. During pendency, the Director of Industries complied and passed a reasoned order on 30.10.2024, holding the writ petitioner ineligible for a registration certificate under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2004, and cancelling and revoking the Registration Certificate issued on 4.3.2005 as amended by order dated 20.1.2006. As the authority had already complied and taken a decision, nothing survived in either appeal; both appeals and the connected stay applications stand disposed of. The legal issues raised in the appeals are left open, and the respondents/writ petitioners are well open to challenge the decision dated 30.10.2024 in the manner known to law.

OD-2&3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

APOT/357/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024

WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS.

ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED AND ORS.

WITH

APOT/213/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. VS.

ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED AND ORS.

BEFORE :

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) Dated : 26^TH MARCH, 2025

Appearance: Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Tanay Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Suddhadev Adak, Adv. ..for the WBIDCL

Mr. Debangshu Dinda, Adv. …for State

Mr. Arif Ali, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kr. Srivastawa, Adv. Ms. Ankita Singh, Adv. …for Respondents

2

THE COURT: Both these appeals have been preferred against the order dated 25^th September 2023 in WPO 2336/2022. The appeal filed by West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited is time barred and there is a delay of 346 days. The appeal filed by the State of West Bengal is also time barred and there is a delay of 208 days.

Considering certain subsequent developments and also being satisfied with the reasons given, the delay in filing both the appeals is condoned.

We have heard Mr. Tanay Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for WBIDCL, Mr. Debangshu Dinda, learned Advocate appearing for the State and Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents.

The learned Single Bench in the impugned order had directed the respondent No.2, namely, the Director of Industries to reconsider, in the light of the observations made in the impugned order, the application for amendment of Registration Certificate filed by the writ petitioners which was refused by the decision impugned in the writ petition by taking into consideration all the documents produced by the writ petitioners on such score. The respondent No.2 was directed to pass a reasoned order within a time-frame. During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent No.2 has complied with the direction and passed a reasoned order on 30.10.2024, by which it was held that the writ petitioner is not eligible for registration certificate under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2004 and the Registration

3

Certificate which was issued on 4.3.2005, subsequently amended by order dated 20.1.2006, was cancelled and revoked.

In the light of the fact that the authority has already complied with the order and a decision has been taken, nothing would survive in both the appeals to be decided.

It is well open to the respondents/writ petitioners to challenge the decision of the Director of Industries, West Bengal dated 30.10.2024 in the manner known to law.

With the above observations, the appeals stand disposed of.

The legal issues which have been raised in these appeals are left open.

The connected stay applications are also disposed of.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)

(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)

sm /SN