Calcutta High Court
FMA/980/2026 of PRASANTA BHAWAL @ P BHAWAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 13 August 2026
13.08.2026 Rohit,A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.04 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE FMA 980 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Prasanta Bhawal @ P.Bhawal Versus Union of India & Ors. Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy Ms. Debangana Dey …for the Petitioner Mr. Dibashis Basu Mr.
D/L 13
13.08.2026
Rohit,A.R.(Ct.)
ct.no.04
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
FMA 980 of 2026
With
CAN 1 of 2026
Prasanta Bhawal @ P.Bhawal
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy
Ms. Debangana Dey
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Dibashis Basu
Mr. Arun Bandyopadhyay
…for the Union of India
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. We have heard the learned Advocates representing the writ petitioner/appellant and the learned Advocates for the Union of India.
2. The writ petition was dismissed in default of appearance on 13.05.2026. Restoration filed two days thereafter was dismissed by an order dated 12.06.2026. The order dated 12.06.2026 is impugned in the present proceeding.
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner that the office of the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner pleaded a bona fide mistake resulting in default in appearance on the fateful date, as the list could not be marked by the office. Such fact was brought to the notice of the Court within two days of the dismissal in default.
4. It is submitted that there was sufficient cause for restoration of the writ petition. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the restoration by observing that the writ petition is an old matter of 2003 and may have been infructuous by this time. Such finding in submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant is not sustainable as the writ petition arises out of dismissal of the petitioner from service in CISF and the cause of action is very much subsisting. According to him the writ petitioner has not even crossed the age of superannuation till date.
5. Learned Advocate for the Union of India submits that the finding of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference.
6. We having considered the submission of the rival parties find that the plea of bona fide mistake committed by the office of the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner was required to be considered with a view to restoration of the writ petition. Since the writ petition was an old writ petition and the petitioner waited for hearing of the matter for nearly 23 years, it was all the more desirable that he returned from the Court with the decision on merits.
7. The finding of the learned Single Judge regarding the matter may have become infructuous is in our opinion unsustainable. There is no definitive finding recorded that the writ petition had become infructuous.
8. We further observe that the dismissal in default being based on a bona fide mistake the writ petitioner was entitled to consideration of his matter on merits.
9. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 12.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge. We allow the restoration application and remit the matter to the Writ Court for consideration on merits.
10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of along with all connected applications.
11. No order as to costs.
12. Urgent Photostat website copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
(Partha Pratim Roy, J.)