The narration of facts hereinbefore clearly reveals that the applicants were not at all diligent in conducting their case ever since May, 2005. Once the writ petition was initially dismissed for default on 19th August, 2013 and was brought back to life by an order dated 14th February, 2014, it was required to be pursued vigorously and prosecuted with due diligence and in right earnest. It has been recently held by this Court in Shankari Naskar v. Kolkata Port Trust and Others, reported in MANU/WB/1136/2015 : AIR 2016, Calcutta 91, that a lis cannot be successively brought back to life merely because a litigant has a right to file a recalling application seeking restoration of his/her lis after each dismissal. This will result in a situation where a litigant-having carriage of proceedings-is allowed to keep his/her lis pending indefinitely before a Court of law thereby causing immense prejudice to the other side who is invariable kept on tenterhooks for an indefinite period of time. It will also result in a situation simply unheard of and unacceptable in a modern justice system, i.e., a lis pending in perpetuity. Successive applications for recalling, emanating from each order of dismissal in respect of a single lis and consequently having the said lis restored to its original file and number each and every time is an unacceptable proposition, which, if indulged by a Court, will encourage a litigant to adopt such tactics only in order to keep his/her lis pending for an indefinite period of time. The closure of a lis, not prosecuted with due diligence or in right earnest by a litigant, therefore, is inevitably warranted, especially when it is evident from record that a litigant is having his/her lis restored successively, consequent upon each order of dismissal, by having the same recalled each and every time.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CAN 7184 of 2016 and CAN 4436 of 2014 in WP No. 1955(W) of 2002
Decided On: 05.08.2016
Biswananda Naskar and Ors.
Vs.
State of West Bengal and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Biswanath Somadder, J.
1. The writ petition was filed in the year 2002 and after the initial interim order was passed-which was extended from time to time-the petitioners appear to have lost interest in the matter sometime after May, 2005. This is evident from the series of adjournments that were taken on behalf of the petitioners on one pretext or the other subsequently. Sometimes, the writ petition was even adjourned because the advocate was not present. Ultimately, after a period of eight years, the writ petition was dismissed for default on 19th August, 2013. Subsequently, by an order dated 14th February, 2014, the writ petition was restored. In spite of the writ petition being restored, the petitioners neither demonstrated any due diligence or any sort of promptness or eagerness to prosecute the writ petition, which invariable resulted in the writ petition being again dismissed for default on 4th June, 2014. After the second dismissal, yet again, another restoration application was filed, which also was dismissed for default on 11th May, 2015.
2. Now it appears that a restoration application-seeking restoration of the restoration application-has been taken out on 20th July, 2016, wherein a prayer has also been made for condonation of delay of 405 days in filing of the said application.
3. A question that comes up for consideration is whether the Court will grant the applicant such reliefs as prayed for in the facts of the instant case.
4. The narration of facts hereinbefore clearly reveals that the applicants were not at all diligent in conducting their case ever since May, 2005. Once the writ petition was initially dismissed for default on 19th August, 2013 and was brought back to life by an order dated 14th February, 2014, it was required to be pursued vigorously and prosecuted with due diligence and in right earnest. It has been recently held by this Court in Shankari Naskar v. Kolkata Port Trust and Others, reported in MANU/WB/1136/2015 : AIR 2016, Calcutta 91, that a lis cannot be successively brought back to life merely because a litigant has a right to file a recalling application seeking restoration of his/her lis after each dismissal. This will result in a situation where a litigant-having carriage of proceedings-is allowed to keep his/her lis pending indefinitely before a Court of law thereby causing immense prejudice to the other side who is invariable kept on tenterhooks for an indefinite period of time. It will also result in a situation simply unheard of and unacceptable in a modern justice system, i.e., a lis pending in perpetuity. Successive applications for recalling, emanating from each order of dismissal in respect of a single lis and consequently having the said lis restored to its original file and number each and every time is an unacceptable proposition, which, if indulged by a Court, will encourage a litigant to adopt such tactics only in order to keep his/her lis pending for an indefinite period of time. The closure of a lis, not prosecuted with due diligence or in right earnest by a litigant, therefore, is inevitably warranted, especially when it is evident from record that a litigant is having his/her lis restored successively, consequent upon each order of dismissal, by having the same recalled each and every time.
5. Even when one looks into the averments made in the writ petition it is palpably evident that the writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP 17207 (W) of 2001, which was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 24th December, 2001. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is a consequential action of issuance of a notice dated 18th January, 2002, by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Barasat, North 24-Parganas. Instead of challenging the notice, the petitioner ought to have responded to the same, which, for some strange and inexplicable reason, was not done. The only plausible reason, perhaps, is because the petitioners decided to keep on moving this Court by filing successive writ petitions till such time an order was passed by this Court which enured to their benefit (emphasis supplied). This sort of attitude of a litigant is precisely what has been frowned upon by the Supreme Court in several of its judgments. In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran & Ors., reported in MANU/SC/0678/1996 : (1996) 5 SCC 530, it was observed that no litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Courts' time and public money in order to get this affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. His easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions. This observation has also been reflected in a latter judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in MANU/SC/0235/2012 : (2012) 5 SCC 398, while it was considering as to whether there should be any restraint on a writ petitioner in such a fact situation or whether he should be permitted to abuse the judicial process as he likes (emphasis in original). The above observations of the Supreme Court were taken notice by this Court in a judgment rendered in the case of Debashis Biswas v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in MANU/WB/1135/2012 : (2013) 1 CLT 25 (HC) : MANU/WB/1135/2012 : (2013) 1 WBLR (Cal) 530.
6. For reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit, either in respect of the restoration application or in respect of the writ petition, both of which are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed along with CAN 4436 of 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment