Subrata Talukdar,J. - (1.) Party/Parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title. Unfortunately, although the State-Respondents were represented by Learned Counsel on the previous date, i.e. July 12, 2019, no representation has been put in today by Learned State Counsel. No accommodation is sought on behalf of the State-Respondents even at the second call. Since this is a writ petition of 2002 supported by applications of 2019 for recall of the order of dismissal for default dated January 20, 2015 and keeping in view the previous order of this Court dated July 12, 2019, the adjudication is proceeded with on the basis of the existing appearance of the parties. Since by the order dated July 12, 2019, this Court paused to consider the application for recall of the order of dismissal supported by the prayer for condonation of delay along with the writ petition of 2002, such consideration is being made today by this order.
(2.) The writ application is taken up for consideration on merits simply because of its long pending of 17 years, only allowing the application for restoration and condonation of delay respectively by restoring the writ petition to its original file and number would, in the view of this Court, lead to further delay in adjudicating the main writ petition. Accordingly, the applications being CAN 2441 of 2019 and CAN 2442 of 2019 are taken up for consideration and disposed of by recalling the order of dismissal for default dated January 20, 2015 and restoring the writ petition to its original file and number. Now, taking up the writ petition on merits, Mr. Bhattacharyya, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are the owners of the land over which the petitioners are carrying on brick earth extraction work. It is a position admitted by the petitioners that such extraction work is being carried on by the petitioners without obtaining any licence or permit from the Competent Authority (CA).
(3.) In the writ petition, the petitioners challenge the imposition of the rate of royalty by the CA as being both arbitrary and excessive.;