When the Calcutta High Court dismisses a writ petition for default without examining merits, no question of law is adjudicated and no substantive legal precedent is set; such an order does not clarify, overrule, or affirm existing law, and is not binding or persuasive for future cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/3308/2020 of Burdge Town Krira Sanskritik Unnayan Samity Vs State of West Bengal & ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0085492020 |
| Date of Registration | 18-02-2020 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding as substantive precedent |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive; no legal principle decided |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Mere dismissal for default does not adjudicate legal rights, questions of law, or clarify/alter precedent.
- No legal principle or ratio is established for future guidance.
- Such dismissal is not authority for any proposition and cannot be cited for any substantive or procedural question.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the absence of the petitioner and that no accommodation was sought.
- Learned Advocate for the private respondents was present.
- In view of continued absence and lack of steps by the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed for default without examination of merits or questions of law.
- No reasoning or discussion on substantive legal issues is contained in the order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- No submission recorded; petitioner was absent and no accommodation sought.
Respondent:
- Ms. Munmun Tewary, learned Advocate, appeared for the private respondents; specific submissions (if any) are not recorded.
Factual Background
The writ petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court. On the date of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner nor was any request for accommodation made. Counsel was present for the private respondents. The petition was dismissed for default due to non-appearance of the petitioner.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory interpretation, analysis, or discussion is recorded in the order. The petition was dismissed solely for procedural default.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None. The order is by a single judge with no concurring or dissenting opinions.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines have been set by this order.
Alert Indicators
None.
Citations
No citation specified or created by the judgment. The order is non-reportable and non-precedential.