- (1.) THE COURT : The present appeal pertains to second round of litigation in the same controversy between the parties. The enactment in which the parties are fighting the lis is the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. According to the appellant, he had to knock at the doors of this Court invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution on account of serious penal consequences which have to be faced by the appellant for want of registration of the person and also want of registration of the project of the promoter.
(2.) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 15 -2 - 2012 has given rise to the present litigation. The earlier writ petition was filed by the complainant aggrieved by the reasoned order of the Authorized Officer on the complaint of the writ petitioner. Sections 5, 6 and 6A of the aforementioned Act are relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy in the matter. The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition by Order dated 15 -2 -2012 in the following manner : - "The Court : Mr. Ghosh appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of revision under section 6A of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Authorised Officer dated August 24, 2011 (at page 269) Mr.Banerjee appearing for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner could file an application for revision. But he says that the remedy of revision cannot be considered an efficacious remedy, for it is the discretion of the State Government either to revise the order or not to revise. I think the petitioner should be regulated to the remedy of revision under section 6A. If the petitioner remains aggrieved by the decision of the State Government, he can always approach the Writ Court under art.226. For these reasons, I dispose of the writ petition saying that the petitioner is at liberty to file revision under section 6A and hopeing that the revision application is submitted, then the State Government will deal with it without any delay. No costs. Certified xerox."
(3.) Subsequently, when the matter went before the statutory Revisional Authority, said authority dismissed the revision on the ground of limitation holding that the revision was preferred beyond the period of limitation contemplated under section 6A of the above Act. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner/complainant approached this Court in the present writ petition contending that there was no justification to dismiss the revision without going into the merits of the case since the order dated 15 -2 -2012 implies that the period of limitation contemplated under Section 6A of the Act was impliedly waived. Ultimately, the matter was heard at length and the learned Single Judge by a detailed order passed the impugned Judgment. ;