S/L 08 17.02.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N W.P.S.T. 53 of 2004 With CAN 1 of 2006 (Old No. CAN 501 of 2006) CAN 2 of 2011 (Old No. CAN 1033 of 2011) CAN 3 of 2023 CAN 4 of 2023 Desh Ranjan Sengupta Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Bhudeb Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Subham Ghosh … for the Petitioner. Mr. Arjun Ray Mukherjee, Mr. Subhendu Sen Gupta … for the State. In Re: CAN 3 of 2023 1. CAN 3 of 2023 is an application for restoration. 2. The writ petition stood dismissed for default on 18.02.2016. The restoration application was filed in the year 2023. In the application for restoration it is averred that the writ petitioner died intestate on 22.10.2010. The original writ petitioner/applicant was pursuing the matter through his lawyer. The applicants did not even know who was the advocate on record, nor did they know the case number. When the applicants matured they made enquiries about the case. In April, 2023 they were informed that there was now an online search facility. Thereafter the applicants went to a cyber café and searched the details of the pending case through the various parameters available on the search website. Their substitution application was thus found to be still pending. 2 3. Thereafter the applicants searched for the learned advocate, who was finally traced after great difficulty. On account of demise of the applicant’s father in 2010 there was occasioned a communication gap which led to dismissal of the case due to default in appearance in 2016. 4. The facts and circumstances noted above, as stated in the application for restoration in our view depicts a situation of helplessness, lack of information and knowledge of the details regarding pending matter. 5. In view of most unfortunate circumstances as noticed above the application for restoration, in our opinion discloses sufficient cause for restoration of the writ petition. The writ petition is restored to its original file and number. 6. CAN 3 of 2023 is disposed of in these terms. In Re: CAN 4 of 2023 and CAN 2 of 2011 (Old No. CAN 1033 of 2011) 1. Insofar as the application for Condonation of delay in filing substitution application (CAN 4 of 2023), and Substitution application [CAN 2 of 2011 (Old No. CAN 1033 of 2011)], we are guided by a common consideration as recorded in respect of the restoration application and, therefore, allow the condonation and substitution. 3 2. The department to take steps accordingly for modifying the cause title as per details in the substitution application. 3. CAN 4 of 2023 and CAN 2 of 2011 (Old No. CAN 1033 of 2011) are disposed of. In Re: W.P.S.T. 53 of 2004 1. The learned advocate representing the writ petitioner submits that a contempt application CPAN 376 of 2005 has been filed alleging violation of the directions contained in an earlier order dated 28.06.2004 in the present proceedings. 2. The writ petition stood dismissed way back in the year 2016. The same is restored today. In the circumstance we prima facie are of the view that there is no occasion to allege a contempt as an interim order merges in the final order, which by now is a settled principle of law. 3. The learned advocate for the state, however, submits that he has been entrusted with the matter and he requires sometime for examining the records and placing on record, in the present proceeding, any document/material that may not be available here, for the purposes of consideration of the writ petition on merits. 4. We allow him one week time as prayed for. List on 23rd February, 2026. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)