Where petitioners are absent and seek no accommodation, the court may dismiss a writ petition for default, vacating any interim orders. This judgment reaffirms established procedural law for non-appearance in writ matters before the Calcutta High Court and is binding precedent for subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/18313/2021 of SUBHADIP KARMAKAR AND ORS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0348502021 |
| Date of Registration | 17-11-2021 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent on dismissal for default in writ petitions |
| Type of Law | Procedural law concerning writ petitions |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The decision is based on the principle of diligent prosecution and the court’s discretionary power to dismiss for non-appearance. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | None of the petitioners appeared, nor was any request for accommodation made on their behalf, resulting in dismissal for default and vacating of interim orders. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and writ proceedings before the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court when addressing procedural defaults in writ matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that non-appearance without seeking accommodation results in dismissal of writ petitions for default.
- Any interim orders are automatically vacated upon such dismissal.
- Strict adherence to court schedules and proactive communication are crucial.
- The merits of the case are not adjudicated if dismissed for default; petitioners may need to file for restoration if warranted.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that neither the petitioners nor their representatives appeared or sought an adjournment.
- In light of the absence and inaction by the petitioners, the court exercised its power to dismiss the writ petition for default, consistent with established procedural practice.
- The court explicitly stated that any interim order previously granted stands vacated due to such dismissal.
- The reasoning aligns with the principle that judicial time should not be wasted and proceedings must be diligently prosecuted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No appearance or request for accommodation.
Respondent
- No appearance arguments are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
- The writ petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court by Subhadip Karmakar & Ors.
- On the date of hearing, none of the petitioners or their counsels appeared.
- No request or intimation for accommodation was made on behalf of the petitioners.
- Resultantly, the court dismissed the petition for default and vacated any interim orders previously granted.
Statutory Analysis
- The court invoked its procedural discretion to dismiss writ petitions for default where there is non-appearance and no communication from the petitioners.
- No specific statutory interpretation or reading down of statutory provisions occurred in the judgment; the dismissal was procedural in nature.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reiterates the established procedure that absence without accommodation leads to default dismissal and vacation of interim orders.
- No new procedural innovations are introduced.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Established procedural precedent regarding dismissal for default reaffirmed.