Calcutta High Court
MAT/1296/2026 of JAHIR ABBAS MOLLA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 3 September 2026
Court No. 12 Item No.11 Sandip MAT 1296 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Jahir Abbas Molla Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Subir Kr. Bhattacharyya, Ms. Rita Patra, Mr. Noor Islam Seikh …for the Appellant. Mr. Debapriya Gupta, AGP, Mr. Rajdeep Mantha, Mr. Ankur Sharma … for
03.09.2026
Court No. 12
Item No.11
Sandip
MAT 1296 of 2026
With
CAN 1 of 2026
Jahir Abbas Molla
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subir Kr. Bhattacharyya,
Ms. Rita Patra,
Mr. Noor Islam Seikh
…for the Appellant.
Mr. Debapriya Gupta, AGP,
Mr. Rajdeep Mantha,
Mr. Ankur Sharma
… for the State.
Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya,
Mr. Subhendu Roy Choudhury
…for the respondent no. 8.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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. The appeal arises out of an order dated July 28, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 3005 of 2026.
2. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with cost of Rs. 10,000/-, to be paid to the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority.
3. His Lordship was of the view that the writ petitioner had misled the Court and sought for an urgent listing. The ground of urgency was contrary to the prayers in the writ petition.
4. We cannot blame His Lordship. When a learned advocate mentions a matter before a Constitutional Court, some fairness, responsibility and honesty are expected. In this case, when the appellant mentioned the matter, the urgency pleaded was beyond the scope of the writ petition and there was a misrepresentation which should be taken serious note of. However, for the fault of the learned advocate, the appellant should not suffer. Under such circumstances, the dismissal of the writ petition is harsh on the litigant.
5. The learned advocate on record for the appellant/writ petitioner is cautioned.
6. The writ petition should be decided on its own merit.
7. We also direct the said learned advocate on record to file a written apology before the learned single Judge, in a sealed cover.
8. Accordingly, the appeal and the application are disposed of. The order impugned is modified. His Lordship will rehear the matter in accordance with law.
9. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 2