2609 2025 FRIDAY Court : MB-07 Item : AD-06 Status : DC-OR-SG ID : 266057 AR : NANDY IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 10601 OF 2022 CAN 1 OF 2025 CAN 2 OF 2025 KOLKATA WOMEN’S CLINIC represented by DIRECTOR, DR. PARTHA RANJAN DAS VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. MR.DIBYENDU CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE MS. SATABDI DAS, ADVOCATE MR. MAINAK SINGHA BARUA, ADVOCATE MR. SUNANDA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE ……for the Petitioner MR. RAJDEEP PRAMANIK, ADVOCATE (ONLINE) ……for the Respondent No. 4 MS. AMRITA PANJA MOULICK, ADVOCATE ……for the State CAN 1 OF 2025 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the application for restoration being CAN 2 of 2025. 2. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and upon perusal of the materials on record, I am satisfied with the explanation offered for the delay, as 'sufficient cause' existed which prevented the petitioner from preferring the application for restoration. 3. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay being CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed. CAN 2 of 2025 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, I am satisfied with the explanation offered for the absence of the learned Advocate for the petitioner on 18.07.2025, when the writ petition was dismissed for default. 5. Accordingly, the application being CAN 2 of 2025 is allowed. 6. The order dated 18.07.2025 is recalled. 7. WPA 10601 of 2022 is restored to its original file and number. WPA 10601 OF 2022 8. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 9. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate representing the P a g e | 2 petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a doctor specializing in In-Vitro Fertilization and Surrogacy. The private respondent no. 3 approached him with the intention of having a baby through the surrogacy process. He submits that the petitioner applied his expertise and diligence to make the process a success. However, ultimately, it did not succeed due to health issues faced by respondent no. 3. He further submits that this issue was raised before the Commission, but the Commission overlooked the same and mechanically imposed a penalty upon the petitioner. 10. Learned Advocate for the private respondent vehemently opposed such contention. 11. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, I am of the view that the issue raised in this writ petition warrants consideration on merits, and the petitioner has made out a good arguable case. 12. In view thereof, there shall be a stay of operation of the order dated 18.05.2022, passed by the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission in Complaint Case No. INT/SPG/2022/111, until the end of December 2025 or until further orders, whichever is earlier. 13. List the matter for further consideration on 22.11.2025. (PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.) P a g e | 3