25.08.2026 rpan/03 WPCT 119 of 2026 Soumen Kanti Das – Versus – Union of India & Others Mr. U. K. Jana … for the Petitioner. Mr. Sauvik Nandy, Mr. Subrata Santra … for the UoI/Respondent nos.1 to 5. The present writ petition has been preferred by the original applicant/petitioner herein primarily praying for issuance of necessary direction to dispose of the original application (in short, OA), being OA/706/2020 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Mr. Jana, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the OA was preferred way back in the year 2020. The same was admitted and direction was issued upon the parties to exchange their reply and rejoinder. Pursuant to such direction, the respondent nos.1 to 5 submitted their reply to which the petitioner used a rejoinder. However, no one entered appearance on behalf of the private respondent no.6 and as such the matter was repeatedly adjourned. For the fault on the part of the private respondent no.6, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Mr. Nandy, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 5 submits that pursuant to the direction of the learned Tribunal, the said respondents filed their reply way back on 9th April, 2021 to which the petitioner has also used a rejoinder. However, when the matter appeared for consideration before the learned Tribunal on 27th June, 2024 the learned Tribunal passed an order observing inter alia that the private respondent has not been issued any notice. In view thereof, notice was directed to be served upon the private respondent no.6 along with a complete set of OA including the reply of the respondent authorities, rejoinder thereto and the written notes of argument filed by the petitioner. By the said order the private respondent no.6 was also directed to take appropriate steps for defence in his favour by the next date of listing. Pursuant to such direction, notice was served and the private respondent no.6 entered appearance and filed reply on 18th November, 2024. In the said conspectus, Mr. Nandy also agrees that as pleadings are complete, necessary direction may be issued for 2 early disposal of the OA as the same is pending for more than six years. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the orders earlier passed by the learned Tribunal in the OA. In spite of service no one appears today on behalf of the respondent no.6. Records would reveal that after filing of the OA a period was lost due to the pandemic. By an order dated 12th April, 2023 the OA filed in the year 2020 was ultimately admitted. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an application for expeditious disposal of the OA which was heard by the learned Tribunal on 15th May, 2023 and direction was issued to list the matter for hearing on 19th July, 2023. In the midst thereof, the respondent nos. 1 to 5 filed the reply to which the original applicant/petitioner also used a rejoinder. Thereafter, by an order dated 27th June, 2024 the learned Tribunal directed the Registry to issue notice upon the respondent no.6. Pursuant to such direction notice was issued and the respondent no.6 filed a reply on 18th December, 2024 to which the petitioner has used a rejoinder. However, subsequent thereto the matter was adjourned on repeated occasions 3 ‘due to paucity of time’. Thereafter, by an order dated 7th July, 2025 the learned Tribunal observed that the matter pertains to the Division Bench and direction was issued to list the matter on 18th August, 2025 before the Division Bench. Thereafter, again the matter was adjourned for about four times and ultimately the next date has been fixed on 7th September, 2026. From the records it appears that OA appeared before the learned Tribunal on about twenty occasions. The learned Tribunal was also desirous of disposing of the OA expeditiously as would be explicit from the orders dated 15th May, 2023 and 27th June, 2024. By the former order the leaned Tribunal disposed of the application for early hearing fixing the matter on 19th July, 2023 and in the latter order the learned Tribunal observed inter alia that ‘it is made clear that no further time will be granted on the next date of listing’. Initially the respondent no.6 did not appear before the learned Tribunal. The entire delay in the proceedings is not in any manner attributable to the petitioner. The learned Tribunal is expected to regulate its own procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal and to ensure that 4 the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time. In view thereof and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the learned Tribunal to make an endeavour to dispose of the OA on the date fixed for further consideration on 7th September, 2026 or as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months thereafter, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition, being WPCT 119 of 2026 is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 5