Calcutta High Court

WRIT PETITION None on 9 September 2003

15.07.2024

Item No.19

PG

Ct. No.7

W.P.A. 2261 of 1985

(C.R. No. 2261(W) of 1985) With

I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2007 (Old CAN 8979 of 2007)

With

I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2007 (Old CAN 8980 of 2007)

Kesoram Industries & Cotton

Mills Limited & Anr.

Versus The Municipal Corporation of Calcutta & Ors.

Mr. Lakshmi Kr. Gupta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee

Mr. Debdatta Sen

Ms. Ledia Dasgupta

………for the Petitioners

Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh

Ms. Manisha Nath …..for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation In Re:. I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2007 (Old CAN 8980 of 2007)

In

W.P.A. 2261 of 1985 (C.R. No. 2261(W) of 1985)

1. This is an application for recalling the order datedSeptember 9, 2003 and for restoration of the writpetition to its original file and number.September 9, 2003 and for restoration of the writpetition to its original file and number.

Page 1 of 2

2. Mr. Ghosh, learned senior advocate representing theKolkata Municipal Corporation submits that such anapplication for restoration is not maintainable as thewrit petition was withdrawn long prior thereto.Kolkata Municipal Corporation submits that such anapplication for restoration is not maintainable as thewrit petition was withdrawn long prior thereto.

3. After going through the order dated July 9, 1997passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.A. 778 ofpassed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.A. 778 of 1997, this Court finds that the said order records thefollowing:

“On instructions it is submitted by Mr.Dutta that the matters referred to in paragraph-3 of the order passed by the Hearing Officer on22[nd]January, 1997 may be treated aswithdrawn. Such prayer is allowed. Whileconsidering the matter, the Hearing Officer shallalso take into account the notice issued by theMunicipal Commissioner, being Annexure ‘B tothe writ petition.”

4. It appears from paragraph 3 of the order of the order of the Hearing Officer dated January 22, 1997 that thereference of C.R. 2261(W) of 1985 was mentioned.Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that C.R.2261(W) of 1985 was treated to be withdrawn by theorder dated July 9, 1997.

5. Thus, Mr. Ghosh was right in contending that thisapplication for restoration is not maintainable. Theapplication for restoration (I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2007 (OldCAN 8980 of 2007) in (W.P.A. 2261 of 1985 (C.R. No.2261(W) of 1985) accordingly, stand dismissed.application for restoration is not maintainable. Theapplication for restoration (I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2007 (OldCAN 8980 of 2007) in (W.P.A. 2261 of 1985 (C.R. No.2261(W) of 1985) accordingly, stand dismissed.

6. There shall be however, no order as to costs.

7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if appliedfor, be furnished to the parties expeditiously uponcompliance of all legal formalities.for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously uponcompliance of all legal formalities.

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead