The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that where a petitioner does not appear and has not sought accommodation, dismissal for default is justified. This approach maintains settled law on court procedure and is of practical precedential value for High Courts and subordinate courts dealing with non-prosecution of writ petitions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/2006/2025 of NIKHIL DAS Vs SILIGURI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCJ0047132025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya) |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law (Writ Proceedings) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that where the petitioner is not represented at the time the case is called and no request for accommodation has been made, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for default. This reaffirms the established procedural norm that a party must diligently prosecute its case. The presence of respondents’ counsel does not bar such dismissal. The order wraps up without addressing merits due to procedural lapse by the petitioner. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that non-appearance by the petitioner without seeking accommodation justifies dismissal for default in writ matters.
- The court is not required to adjourn when the petitioner or their counsel is absent and has not requested an adjournment.
- Lawyers must ensure diligent representation or explicitly seek accommodation to avoid dismissal for default.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court found that, at the time the matter was called, the petitioner was not represented.
- No request for accommodation or adjournment was communicated to the Court.
- Counsel for the private respondent and the Municipal Corporation were present.
- Given the absence of the petitioner and absence of any request, the Court exercised its procedural discretion to dismiss the writ petition for default.
- No merits of the petition were addressed; order rests solely on non-prosecution by the petitioner.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- None recorded; petitioner was not present and made no submissions.
Respondent
- Mr. Sanjay Mazoomdar appeared for respondent No. 5.
- Mr. Bijoy Bikram Das and Mr. Deborshi Dhar appeared for Siliguri Municipal Corporation.
- No express submissions recorded as the matter was not heard on merits.
Factual Background
- The petitioner filed a writ petition against Siliguri Municipal Corporation and others.
- On the scheduled date of hearing, the petitioner or their counsel did not appear.
- No request for accommodation or adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner.
- The private respondent and the Municipal Corporation were represented by counsel.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment does not record discussion of any statutory provision.
- The decision is grounded solely in procedural law relating to prosecution of writ petitions and the discretion to dismiss for default.
Procedural Innovations
- No new procedural rules or guidelines established; the judgment adheres to existing procedural practice concerning dismissal for default.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment upholds settled procedural law on dismissal for default in writ proceedings.