AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) ON 17th January, 2005 the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous writ petition was filed by the writ petitioners before this Court.
(2.) FACT remains that the petitioners are Directors/Promoters of a company, which obtained a foreign currency loan of Rs. 2, 65, 00, 000/- from the Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter called as 'IDBI'). According to the petition­ers, estimated cost of the project is Rs. 7, 40, 00, 000/-. The promoters of the company contributed Rs. 2, 00, 00, 000/-and remaining amount of Rs. 2, 09, 00, 000/-was raised through public issue from Indian residents and non-resident inves­tors. According to the petitioners, due to certain stringent conditions imposed by the State Pollution Board, the operation of the company's plant had to be stopped in the year 1999 and the IDBI took control of the entire assets of the company and its plant and machinery in September, 2003. The company has consequently been de-listed by the stock exchange. The Registrar of the companies filed a first information report (hereinafter called as 'F.I.R.') against the petitioners in respect of various offences. In such report of the Registrar it is mentioned that Stock Exchange and SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) have also initiated proceedings against the petitioners, whereas according to the petitioners no such thing had happened. In any event, it has been specifically stated in the F.I.R. that the Directors and Promoters of the company are absconding and continuing to remain traceless. According to the petitioners, the dispute is of civil nature. However, from the record it appears that on 24th January, 2005 a Division Bench of this High Court directed to put up this matter as fresh on a particular date on the basis of the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. On 28th January, 2005 when none appeared on behalf of the petitioners even when the list was revised, the writ petition was directed to be placed in-4he next cause list. On 23rd May, 2006 again the writ petition appeared before this Bench comprising of Amitava Lala and Shiv Shanker, JJ., but when none appeared in support of the writ petition even on the repeated calls, the following order was passed by this Bench on 23rd May, 2006: “None appears in support of the writ petitioner even on the repeated calls. The date of F.I.R. is 6.6.2003. However, in the prayer, another date has been incorporated as 9.11.2004. The writ petition has been filed on 22.12.2004. We have not received any submission as regards to the delay in filing the writ petition. Two dates of F.I.R.'s have been incorporated in one writ petition. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. No order is passed as to costs.”
(3.) HOWEVER , from the record we find that the department has treated the ac­tual date of filing of the writ petition as 13th January, 2005. Although we have said in the order dated 23rd May, 2006 that no explanation regarding delay in filing the writ petition is available but we find that a solitary explanation has been given in paragraph-12 of the writ petition with regard to major abdominal surgery in Janu­ary, 2002 of the petitioner No. 1, who was ailing for some time with undiagnosed symptoms. Therefore, such explanation cannot be seemed to be cogent in filing the writ petition belatedly only on 13th January, 2005 when the F.I.R. had been lodged on 6th June, 2003. Moreover, apart from petitioner No. 1, the other peti­tioners were also parties to the writ petition, with regard to whom no explanation is given as to why the writ petition was not filed in time by them and also on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 to avoid the unnecessary laches. In any event, on the relevant date the writ petition was dismissed in view of non-availability of the petitioners' Counsel, who was reluctant in proceeding with the writ petition and was habitual defaulter in proceeding before the Court as also available in the record.;