A dismissal of a writ petition for default—where no one appears for the petitioner—does not decide any substantive legal question, nor does it create new law or alter existing judicial precedent; such orders have no precedential value for future cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/23404/2019 of MD. ZINNAH ALI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0515792019 |
| Date of Registration | 13-12-2019 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | No precedential value; does not determine any point of law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | When the matter was called on, no one appeared for the writ petitioner. The respondent no. 4 was represented by counsel. The Court dismissed the writ petition for default. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None; does not bind subordinate courts or future benches |
| Persuasive For | None; not a decision on merits and cannot be relied upon in subsequent matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A dismissal for default does not involve an adjudication of any legal question or right.
- Such dismissal orders hold no precedential or persuasive value for subsequent cases.
- Lawyers should ensure appearance and prosecution so that substantive issues may be decided on merits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the absence of appearance by the writ petitioner when the matter was called on.
- The respondent no. 4 was represented, but no submissions from the petitioner were available.
- Based on the lack of representation, the Court dismissed the petition for default.
- No costs were imposed; no substantive legal or factual issue was decided.
- The case is closed due to non-prosecution, not on merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
No argument was advanced as no one appeared for the petitioner.
Respondent
Respondent no. 4 was represented, but the judgment records no specific submissions.
Factual Background
When the writ petition (WPA/23404/2019) came up for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The matter was listed before the Calcutta High Court, and respondent no. 4 had legal representation. Owing to the petitioner’s absence, the matter was dismissed for default, with no order as to costs.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory provision was analyzed or interpreted, as the dismissal was on the ground of default for non-appearance rather than on any legal merits.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None; the matter was decided unilaterally by the presiding judge with no dissent or concurrence.
Procedural Innovations
None; the Court followed established procedure for dismissing matters for default due to non-appearance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Dismissal for default is a routine practice and does not create a new precedent.
Citations
No formal citations provided in the judgment.