AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
A short point is involved in the present challenge.
By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal condoned the delay in preferring an original application by the private respondent on the strength of a medical certificate produced by the private respondent, the applicant before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that whereas it is evident from the certificate that it was issued on April 06, 2015, the Tribunal, in a perverse manner, came to the conclusion that it was dated November 06, 2015, thus accepting the private respondent’s contention to that extent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks to rely on the original of the said document and submits that the date was rightly interpreted by the Tribunal as November 06, and not April 06, 2015.
However, even on a cursory perusal of the medical certificate, a copy of which is annexed to the present writ petition at page-63, and an original of which is temporarily handed over to us by learned counsel for the private respondent himself, it is as clear as daylight that the date of issuance of the said purported medical certificate was “6.4.2015”.
Thus, there was no scope of misconstruing the date as “6.11.2015”.
However, in the said medical certificate, surprisingly, the concerned Doctor certified that the private respondent was suffering from certain ailments from January 21, 2015 to April 07, 2015.
It is quite astonishing as to how on April 06, 2015, at the time of issuance of the certificate, the concerned Doctor was prophetic and predicted that the private respondent would be ill till the next date.
Moreover, it is absurd that on April 06, 2015, a certificate is given, stating in the past tense that the private respondent “was” suffering from such ailments up to a future date, that is, April 07, 2015.
A visual inspection is sufficient to observe that the date of issuance and date till which the ailment allegedly persisted were respectively depicted as April 6, 2015 and April 07, 2015 respectively.
We find from the impugned order that the learned Tribunal did not advert in detail to such gross discrepancy in the medical certificate, which raises a serious doubt as to the veracity of the same.
Accordingly, such error amounts to perversity and the impugned order cannot be sustained on such count.
Thus, WPLRT 133 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated November 17, 2025, passed by the Fourth Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in M.A. 998/2016 in connection with O.A. 1764/2015 (LRTT), and remanding the matter to the Tribunal to rehear the condonation application upon adverting scrupulously to the discrepancies, as pointed out above, in the medical certificate produced by the private respondent before the Tribunal, and come to a reasoned conclusion on the condonation application on the basis of such perusal.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
I agree.