The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that writ petitions may be dismissed for default when neither party appears, with any interim order vacated as a consequence. This order follows established procedural norms and does not change substantive legal principles. Its precedential value for future cases is limited to procedural aspects.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/9333/2010 of MAHANANDA SATUA Vs THE CHAIRMAN & MD, WBSEDCL & ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0235172010 |
| Date of Registration | 04-05-2010 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (Justice Kausik Chanda) |
| Precedent Value | Limited (procedural dismissal for default) |
| Type of Law | Procedural (Civil/Writ Jurisdiction) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Calcutta High Court (procedural; limited to dismissals for default) |
| Persuasive For | Subordinate courts regarding handling of non-appearance |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that absence of parties at the second call will result in dismissal of the writ petition for default.
- Interim orders, if any, automatically stand vacated upon such procedural dismissal.
- No substantive legal rights or defenses are adjudicated in such orders.
- Highlights the importance of ensuring presence or representation to avoid procedural dismissals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that none appeared for either side even at the second call.
- Following established procedural norms, the writ petition was accordingly dismissed for default.
- The court clarified that any interim order earlier granted stands vacated as a necessary procedural consequence.
- No substantive legal reasoning or interpretation was required or provided since the matter was not argued due to the parties’ absence.
Arguments by the Parties
No arguments are recorded in the judgment as none appeared for either party at the hearing.
Factual Background
- The writ petition WPA 9333 of 2010 was listed before the Calcutta High Court on 10.09.2025.
- Neither the petitioner nor the respondents appeared, even at the second call.
- The court, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the writ petition for default, and vacated any interim order that may have been in force.
- No facts of the underlying dispute were recorded, as the matter was not heard.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory provisions were discussed or interpreted in the judgment, as the dismissal was purely procedural due to non-appearance.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There are no dissenting or concurring opinions, as this was a single-judge bench decision.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or instructions were set; the procedure followed is standard for cases dismissed for default on non-appearance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing procedural law regarding non-appearance and default dismissal affirmed.