Dismissed¶21

Khagendra Nath Saha v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC10 Apr 2025WPA/26211/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition WPA 26211 of 2024 (Khagendra Nath Saha v. State of West Bengal & ors.); dismissed as 'withdrawn' at petitioner's request; recall of unsigned order dated 10.04.2025 and fresh order of 11.04.2025; Vakalatnama filed 10.04.2025 with 'No Objection' endorsement by Subhajit Das, Advocate; case-status report evidencing filing; connected application CAN 1 of 2025 for addition of party disposed of; listed 'To Be Mentioned'; petitioner's advocate Prabreet Kumar De; applicant's advocates Kausik Dey, Ziaul Haque, Paulomi Ghosh; Om Narayan Rai, J.; Court No.551.

What did the court decide?

None — the writ petition was dismissed as 'withdrawn' at the petitioner's own request and the connected application (CAN 1 of 2025 for addition of party) stood disposed of. ¶21

Khagendra Nath Saha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

11.04.2025 Item No.01 Court No.551 Avijit Mitra

¶2

WPA 26211 of 2024

¶3

Khagendra Nath Saha - Versus - The State of West Bengal & ors.

¶4

Mr. Prabreet Kumar De

¶5

…for the petitioner

¶6

On the last occasion i.e. April 10, 2025 when Mr. Prabreet Kumar De, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that his client wishes to withdraw the writ petition and that he had filed the Vakalatnama only on April 10, 2025, the following order was recorded by the Court.

¶7

“Mr. Prabreet Kumar De

¶8

…For the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Kausik Dey Mr. Ziaul Haque Mrs. Paulomi Ghosh

¶10

…For the Applicant in CAN 1 of 2025 for addition of party.

¶11

It is submitted by Mr. Prabreet Kumar De, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the Vakalatnama received by him from his client has been filed in the Department today under filing number …………… He hands up a letter dated April 10, 2025 issued in his name (i.e. Mr. Prabreet Kumar De) by the writ petitioner (i.e. Mr. Khagendra Nath Saha) and submits that the writ petitioner does not want to proceed with the writ petition any further.

¶12

¶13

The aforesaid letter is kept on record. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Since the writ petition has been withdrawn, the connected application also stands disposed of”.

¶14

Since the filing number of the Vakalatnama was not available, the space therefor was left blank and Mr. Prabreet Kumar De was requested to supply the same to the Court in Course of the said day itself. It was made clear that the order would not be signed till such time Mr. Prabreet Kumar De submitted the filing number of the Vakalatnama as aforesaid.

¶15

Mr. De did not turn up on April 10, 2025 and as such the order dated April 10, 2025 could not be signed.

¶16

The matter has therefore been listed under the heading ‘To Be Mentioned’ today.

¶17

Today, Mr. De hands up a copy of the Vakalatnama with the endorsement ‘No Objection’ by Mr. Subhajit Das, Advocate along with the print out of the case status report downloaded from the official website of this Court to demonstrate that he has filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner on 10^th April, 2025.

¶18

He also hands up another letter dated 10.04.2025 addressed to him (i.e. Mr. Prabreet Kumar De) by the writ petitioner (i.e. Khagendra Nath Saha) requesting the learned Advocate to withdraw the writ petition as the petitioner was not willing to proceed with the writ petition further. The said documents are taken on record.

¶19

¶20

In view of the fact that the order pronounced earlier i.e. on April 10, 2025 could not be signed as aforesaid and that Mr. De’s submissions have been recorded afresh today upon taking on record documents supplied by him afresh, the unsigned order dated April 10, 2025 is recalled and a fresh order reiterating the same fate of the petition that was dictated in Court on April 10, 2025 is passed.

¶21

WPA 26211 of 2024 is dismissed as ‘withdrawn’.

¶22

Since the writ petition has been withdrawn, the connected application also stands disposed of.

¶23

(Om Narayan Rai, J.)

Khagendra Nath Saha v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khagendra Nath Saha v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Hoque Mollah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hafija Bibi and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Other Backward Classes,South Eastern Railway,Kolkata and Others Vs South Eastern Railway and Others

Epic Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Banamali Karmakar Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Apurba Manik Vs Tamluk Ghatal Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Daspur Branch and Ors.