Dismissed¶19

Anupam Khanra v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC18 Feb 2026MAT/230/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 315 days delay; appeal dismissed; ex parte order; recall of order; Single Bench; Trial Judge; Panchayat enquiry; contempt application; writ petition; M.A.T. No. 230 of 2026; CAN 1 of 2026; CAN 2 of 2026; Anupam Khanra; State of West Bengal; Rajasekhar Mantha J.; Md. Shabbar Rashidi J.; limitation; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

As the certified copy of the impugned order had not been filed, the actual quantum of delay was not available to the Court. ¶13

Anupam Khanra Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

18.02.2026. Court No. 13 Item No. 15.

¶2

¶3

M.A.T. No. 230 of 2026

¶4

With CAN 1 of 2026 With CAN 2 of 2026 Anupam Khanra Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, Mr. Rahul Deb Goenka, Ms. Satabdi Das, Mr. Shiladitya Rakshit, Mr. Upansu Sen, Ms. Sunanda Chatterjee.

¶6

..for the appellant.

¶7

Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee, Mr. Anis Datta Sharma.

¶8

..for the State.

¶9

Ms. Deblina De, Mr. Dipendu Sarkar.

¶10

…for the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

¶11

Re: CAN 2 of 2026

¶12

This Court notes that the appellant has stated that the delay in filing the appeal is 315 days.

¶13

Since the certified copy has not been filed, the actual quantum of delay is not available before this Court. The only explanation for the delay is at paragraph 9 of the writ petition. The appellant was a party respondent to the writ petition but did not appear before the Trial Judge on the day when the order was passed.

¶14

It is submitted that the appellant came to know of the order only in the month of January, 2026. It appears from the impugned order that the

¶15

¶16

Panchayat was directed to conduct an enquiry and parameters have been specified for the same. On failure of the Panchayat to conduct such enquiry, the respondent/writ petitioner filed an application for contempt of the Court’s order dated 2^nd April, 2025 impugned herein.

¶17

This Court is not even remotely satisfied with the explanation offered at paragraph no. 9 of CAN 2 of 2026 seeking condonaton of delay of 315 days. The appellant has not stated as to why he has not applied before the Single Bench seeking recall of the ex parte order.

¶18