Dismissed¶29

Premamoy Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC11 Jun 2025WPLRT/89/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 1,733 days delay; quality of explanation over quantity of delay; delay not excused as a matter of generosity; substantial justice without prejudice to opposite parties; West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal; M.A. 425 of 2022; O.A. No.1773/2000 (LRTT); Section 50; Case No.1229 of 2014; prescribed authority order dated May 4, 2015; Appellate Authority order dated March 8, 2016; O.A. 1798 of 2016 filed by authorized person Subrata Kumar Chowdhury in his own name; Union of India and Another v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His Lr, 2024 SSC OnLine SC 489; W.P.L.R.T. 89 of 2025; Premamoy Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal; writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs. ¶29

Premamoy Chowdhury Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the writ petitioner's application for condonation of delay of 1,733 days in filing an Original Application against the order of the Appellate Authority.

¶16

Court's answer

It is trite law that a Court is concerned with the quality of the explanation rather than the quantity of the delay; as held in Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (Supra), delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity, and rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite parties.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

On the facts, the writ petitioner was aware of the order passed by the prescribed authority and of the order passed by the Appellate Authority; he authorized Subrata Kumar Chowdhury, whose O.A. 1798 of 2016 against the selfsame Appellate Authority order is pending before the Tribunal, and sought to file a fresh Original Application challenging the selfsame order only after 1733 days from the date of the Appellate Authority's order.

¶24

Key takeaways

Since the writ petitioner was well aware of the proceeding and did not file the Original Application within time, he cannot be granted liberty of condonation of delay as prayed for; the learned Tribunal rightly so noted.ratio¶27
This Court finds no ground to interfere with the order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court, Appellate Side (Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ.), W.P.L.R.T. 89 of 2025 (Premamoy Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), decided 11.06.2025 — writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs. The petition challenged the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal's order dated March 12, 2025 in M.A. 425 of 2022 (O.A. No.1773/2000) (LRTT) dismissing the petitioner's application for condonation of a 1,733-day delay in filing an Original Application against the Appellate Authority's order dated March 8, 2016 (passed in the appeal against the prescribed authority's order dated May 4, 2015 under Section 50 in Case No.1229 of 2014). The petitioner had authorized one Subrata Kumar Chowdhury, who filed O.A. 1798 of 2016 against the same appellate order; the petitioner was aware of both orders and of that pending Original Application, yet sought a fresh Original Application against the selfsame order only after 1,733 days. Relying on Union of India and Another v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His Lr., 2024 SSC OnLine SC 489, the Court held that a Court is concerned with the quality of the explanation rather than the quantity of the delay, that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity, and that rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite parties; a litigant well aware of the proceeding who did not file within time cannot be granted condonation of delay. No ground to interfere; petition dismissed.

¶1

Form No. J (2)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

Present:

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And

¶5

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

¶6

W.P.L.R.T. 89 of 2025

¶7

Premamoy Chowdhury

¶8

vs.

¶9

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶10

For the Petitioner	:	Mr. Suman Chattopadhyay, Advocate
For the State	:	Md. T. M. Siddiqui, Ld. AGP & Sr. Advocate Ms. Debdooti Dutta, Advocate Mr. Suddhadev Adak, Advocate
For the Respondent
Nos. 5 & 6	:	Mr. S. R. Kundu, Advocate Mr. Sudhir Kr. Das, Advocate Mr. Rajyasri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
Heard on	:	11.06.2025
Judgment on	:	11.06.2025

¶11

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

¶12

1. Writ petition is directed against an order dated March 12, 2025 passed in M.A. 425 of 2022 (O.A. No.1773/2000) (LRTT) by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.

¶13

¶14

WPLRT 89 of 2025

¶15

2. By the impugned order, learned Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay being M.A. 425 of 2022. Learned Tribunal noted that, the delay was of 1733 days as well as an authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SSC OnLine SC 489 (Union of India and Another versus Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His Lr).

¶16

3. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. He submits that, although, the appeal directed against the prescribed authority was filed by the writ petitioner the Original Application directed against the order of the Appellate Authority was not filed by the writ petitioner but by one Subrata Kumar Chowdhury. He submits that writ petitioner was not aware of the final order passed by the Appellate Authority and therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in not condoning the delay.

¶17

4. State and some of the private respondents are represented.

¶18

5. We perused the application for condonation of delay, filed by the writ petitioner before learned Tribunal. Delay is of 1,733 days.

¶19

6. It is trite law that, a Court is concerned with the quality of the explanation rather than quantity of the delay. As has been held in Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (Supra) delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite parties.

¶20

¶21

WPLRT 89 of 2025

¶22

7. In the application for condonation of delay, writ petitioner acknowledges that, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order dated May 4, 2015 passed by the prescribed authority under Section 50 in Case no.1229 of 2014. He also states that, he is aware that, Appellate Authority passed its order dated March 8, 2016 in such appeal. Thereafter, writ petitioner goes on to state in his application for condonation of delay that, he authorized one Subrata Kumar Chowdhury to file an Original Application which such person did being O.A. 1798 of 2016 directed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

¶23

8. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that, Subrata Kumar Chowdhury filed O.A. 1798 of 2016 in his own name rather than the name of the writ petitioner.

¶24

9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petitioner is aware of the order passed by the prescribed authority. He is also aware of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. He authorized the filing of an appeal by one Subrata Kumar Chowdhury. He is aware of the Original Application filed by Subrata Kumar Chowdhury which is pending before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. After 1733 days from the date of the order of the Appellate Authority that he seeks to file an Original Application before the learned Tribunal challenging the selfsame order of the Appellate Authority which is under challenge in O.A. 1798 of 2016, through his authorized person, namely, Subrata Kumar Chowdhury.

¶25

¶26

WPLRT 89 of 2025

¶27

10. Learned Tribunal rightly noted that, since the writ petitioner was well aware of the proceeding and since he did not file the Original Application within time, he cannot be granted liberty of condonation of delay as prayed for.

¶28

11. We find no ground to interfere with the order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶29

12. WPLRT 89 of 2025 is dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶30

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

¶31

13 . I agree.

¶32

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)

¶33

CHC

Premamoy Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premamoy Chowdhury 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (in Liqn) -and- Sajal Banerjee and Ors. Vs Official Liquidator and Anr.

Sujit Kumar Kar and Ors. Vs Hindustan Copper Ltd. and Ors.

Nantu Kumar Pal @ Nantu Pal @ Netai Pal Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Shyamapada Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk. Tafajul Hossain and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk. Hasibul Hossain and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.