SUBRATA TALUKDAR,J. - (1.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Rama Halder reiterates her submission that this writ petition stands on the platform of the self-same cause of action espoused in a previous writ petition, also filed by the present petitioner which stood dismissed for default and has not been restored till date. Therefore, in the absence of any co-operation received by the petitioner from her erstwhile learned Advocate by way of taking steps to restore the writ petition, the petitioner has been compelled to file the second writ petition for this self-same reliefs.
(2.) Ms. Halder renews her reliance on the decision of an Hon 'ble Single Bench of this Court reported in (2013) 4 WBLR (Cal) 597 in the matter of Chittaranjan Kar v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.) to make the point that the dismissal in limine of a previous writ petition shall not be a bar to filing a second writ petition. Ms. Halder also relies upon the decision of the Hon 'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1328 (Hoshnak Singh v. Union of India and others) wherein the Hon 'ble Apex Court was pleased to, inter alia, hold that the dismissal of a petition in limine without a speaking order shall not be a bar to filing of a second writ petition.
(3.) The view taken by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in AIR 1979 SC 1328 (supra) was reiterated by an Hon 'ble Division Bench of this Court in 2008 (2) Cal LT 439 (High Court) (Smt. Sarifunnessa v. Union of India and Ors.). On the strength of the above noted decisions Ms. Halder argues that the present second writ petition is maintainable to claim the substantive rights of the petitioner.;