DEBASISH KAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) This is an application for condonation of delay of 1162 days in filing the memorandum of appeal being APOT No.384 of 2016 against the judgment and order dated August 13, 2013 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court.
(2.) According to the appellants, the delay in filing this appeal was that although there was a communication of the ex parte judgment and order impugned to the appeal, to the department of the appellant company, the same was inadvertently misplaced. According to the appellants, they did not get specific knowledge about the fact until the contempt application was served upon them. It is pursuant to the service of the contempt application that they came to know that the writ petition being WP No.722 of 2011 had been disposed of by a single Judge of this Court by an order dated August 13, 2013. This order dated August 13, 2013 is the order impugned to the appeal before us. It is the further case of the appellants that their advocate-on-record was unable to apprise them of any fact and finding no other option, the appellants had to engage a new set of advocates to defend the contempt proceedings. Subsequent to such engagement, the learned advocates made enquiries and thereafter came to know about the order passed. After the contempt application was served upon the appellants, they took necessary advice from their advocates and they were advised to defend the contempt application and to take steps challenging the order dated August 13, 2013. According to the appellants, some time was consumed in preparing the affidavit-inopposition in respect of the contempt application and also in giving necessary instructions to the newly engaged advocates. After consultation between the authorities and the advocates, a decision was taken to prefer an application for review of the order dated August 13, 2013 passed in WP No.722 of 2011. Along with the memorandum of review, the appellants also filed an application for stay of operation of the order impugned to this appeal in the beginning of 2015. The application for review was heard by the learned single Judge and the same was dismissed on August 5, 2016. The appellant no.2 joined his office in mid July, 2016. After his joining, a process of amalgamation of the three transport undertakings were going on and some delay was caused in completing such formalities. Thereafter, once the appellants came to know about the dismissal of the review application, a preliminary discussion was held and the appeal before us was filed in September, 2016.
(3.) The respondents/writ petitioners have strongly opposed the prayer for condonation of delay of 1162 days in preferring the appeal. They have filed an affidavit-in-opposition to the same. It is the contention of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners that thrice the order impugned to this appeal was communicated to the appellant company and that they were aware of the order. It is his further submission that the Chairman himself in the affidavit filed in the contempt proceedings had admitted knowledge of the order impugned. It is his further submission that at one point of time, the appellant company was contemplating compliance of the order and silently they have consumed a lot of time giving false assurances to the writ petitioners as also recorded by the learned single Judge in the contempt proceedings.;