Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) The appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 3rd December, 2013 passed in writ petition no. W.P. 33892(W) of 2013 (Pranab Kumar Maiti and ors. v. The State of West Bengal and ors.) .
(2.) It appears from record that the appeal was filed without certified copy of the judgement and order. The Court on 14.8.2016 granted leave to the learned Counsel for the appellants to file the appeal without the certified copy of the order. The leave granted is noted on the back of the last page of the memo of appeal. It reads - "Leave is granted to file without certified copy with undertaking to produce certified copy of the Order at the time of moving the application within the period of limitation."
(3.) The appeal was taken up by this Court on 20.8.2014 wherein the following order was passed on the delay condonation application. " This Mandamus appeal is filed against an order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 3rd December, 2013 in W.P. No.33892(W) of 2013. The appeal is a defective one. Certified copy of the impugned order has not yet been filed. Since the Memorandum of appeal was not presented within the prescribed period of limitation, the appellants have filed an application for condonation of delay. It was stated therein that the appellants came to know about the order of the Learned Trial Judge on 17th February, 2014 when the concerned authority received the Learned advocate's letter dated 3rd December, 2013 whereby the order of the Learned Trial Judge was communicated to the concerned authority. It was further alleged therein that immediately thereafter the concerned authority viz. District Inspector of Schools (SE), by his letter dated 17th April, 2014 sent a proposal to the Commissioner of School Education for preferring an appeal against the judgement and order dated 3rd December, 2013 passed by the Learned Trial Judge. It was further alleged therein that after examining the proposal sent by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) by his letter dated 17th April, 2014, the Commissioner of School Education instructed the said District Inspector of Schools (SE) to prefer an appeal. It is only thereafter steps were taken for preferring the appeal and ultimately lawyer was engaged on 3rd July, 2014 and the instant appeal was filed on 4th July, 2014. We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. We are not satisfied with the explanation which was given by the State-appellants, for condonation of delay as we find that the impugned order was passed by the Learned Trial Judge in the presence of the Learned advocates representing the State-respondents before the Learned Trial Judge. In our view, it was the duty of the Learned advocate of the State-respondents to communicate the order which was passed in the said matter to his client. If there is any negligence on the part of the Learned lawyer, we cannot help the State-appellants by condoning such a long and inordinate delay on the flimsy ground made out by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay. However, Mr. Ganguli, Learned advocate appearing for the appellants prays for leave to file a supplementary affidavit for bringing further materials on record in support of their prayer for condonation of delay. Considering such prayer, we grant leave to the Stateappellants to file a supplementary affidavit in connection with the application for condonation of delay by 27th August, 2014. In case the appellants file a supplementary affidavit upon the respondents and/or their Learned advocate immediately thereafter. Leave is granted to the respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition to the section 5 application as well as supplementary affidavit, if any filed, by 3rd September, 2014. Reply thereto, if any, be filed by the appellants by 8th September, 2014. Let this matter appear in the list on 9th September, 2014 under the heading 'Application'.";