14.06.2023 Ct. No.42 Item No.17 W.P.A 14359(w) of 1999 CAN 1 of 2022 CAN 2 of 2022 Smt. Rekha Dutta & Ors. Vs. The Estate Manager & Ors. Mr. Debasish Chattopadhyay, Adv., Mr. Loknath Paul, Adv., Mr. Tirthankar Basu, Adv. … for the petitioner CAN 2 of 2022 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the writ petition which was dismissed for default on 23rd October, 2009. By filing the instant writ petition the petitioners have prayed for condonation of delay of 4684 days in failing the application for setting aside of an order of dismissal of the instant writ petition for default dated 23rd October, 2009 are restored the writ petition to its file. It is stated by the petitioners that originally the writ petition being WP No.14359 of 1999 was filed by the present petitioners and their brother Kalachand Dutta. He used to look after the case on behalf of the petitioners. However, the said Kalachand Dutta died 2 on 26th December, 2006. After his death the petitioners became helpless and could not take appropriate step to pursue the aforesaid writ petition. Moreover, the husband of the present petitioner No.1 Smt. Rekha Dutta became seriously ill in the year and she was medically treated at Christian Hospital Sreerampore and also Christian Medical College at Vellore. Thereafter the petitioner No.1 had fallen ill since December, 2009 till 23rd September, 2022. The petitioner No.1 used to look after the case and other petitioners were solely dependent upon her. The petitioners had no knowledge that the writ petition was dismissed for default on 23rd December, 2009. It came to the notice of the petitioners sometimes in the month of September, 2022 and on 22nd September, 2022 he filed an application for restoration of the said writ petition after condonation of delay by 4684 days. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court in MAT 96 of 2021 vide order dated 8th December, 2021 was pleased to condone the delay of 3438 days on the ground that the writ petitioners are lay village people. They may not be conversant with the legal procedure. They did not feel it necessary to take sanction plan since possession of their land was not taken away from them and they were not prejudicially affected. 3 The factual aspect of the instant case is completely different from the unreported decision cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. It is needless to say that the conduct of the party seeking condonation is a relevant factor to be considered by the court in allowing or refusing condonation. But the party should not be encouraged by rejecting the bar of limitation and delay in filing application for restoration of the writ petition should not be condoned. In the instant case there are three petitioners even assuming that the petitioner No.1 was ill there is no ground stated by the other two petitioners which prompted them from filing the application for restoration all the writ petitions which were dismissed for default within the statutory period of time. Inordinate and unexplained delay cannot be condoned. In view of such discussion, the above mention application (CAN 2 of 2022) is rejected. In view of the rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application for restoration of writ petition is also rejected. Record be sent to the department. (Bibek Chaudhuri, J)