Calcutta High Court
RVW/120/2025 of KHOKAN GARAI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 18 September 2026
Item No.3 AP RVW 120 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 With CAN 2 of 2025 Khokan Garai Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. In WPA 3468 of 2023 Khokan Garai Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Mr. Debashis Saha Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal Mr. S. Pal Mr. J. Sarkar ... For the Petitioner/Review
18.09.2026
Court No.13
Item No.3
AP
RVW 120 of 2025
With
CAN 1 of 2025
With
CAN 2 of 2025
Khokan Garai
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
In
WPA 3468 of 2023
Khokan Garai
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Mr. Debashis Saha
Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal
Mr. S. Pal
Mr. J. Sarkar
... For the Petitioner/Review Applicant.
Mr. Depopriya Gupta, AGP
Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee
Mr. Biswanath Banerjee
... For the State.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This Court is not remotely satisfied with the explanation offered for condonation of delay in preferring the instant review application.
2. The applicant admittedly received the certified copy of this Court’s order dated 14th March, 2024 on 24th June, 2024. He has been continuously contacting his erstwhile advocate-on-record, who admittedly was not keeping well and not attending Court regularly. The said advocate-on- record died on 15th February, 2025.
3. The applicant ought to have engaged another advocate after coming to know of the ailment of erstwhile advocate-on-record.
4. There is no specific explanation of each day of delay in terms of the dicta of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 particularly paragraph 200.
5. Carriage of proceedings is on the person wanting to pursue of an application.
6. Even considering the application for review on merits, this Court notes that the petitioner secured far less marks than any other ‘OBC-B’ candidates whether they were appointed against the ‘General Category’ or in the ‘OBC-B’ category.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the review application.
8. CAN
of shall stand dismissed. Consequently, RVW 120 of 2025 along with CAN 2 of 2025 shall also stand dismissed.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)