Sri Utpal Chakma v. The State of Tripura and Others
Court: High Court of Tripura
Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Tripura judgment dated 2026-01-08. Sri Utpal Chakma v. The State of Tripura and Others. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA IA No. 01/2025 of WA No. 118 of 2025 Sri Utpal Chakma, S/o- Late Prabhat Chakma, Resident of Old Kalibari Lane, Near Magnet Club, Krishnanagar, P. O. - Agartala, P. S. - West Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin- 799001. ......... Applicant(s); Versus 1. The State of Tripura to be represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura, having office at Secretariat Building, P. O. - Kunjaban, P. S. - New Capital Complex, Dist. - West Tripura, Pin-799006. 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura, having office at Secretariat Building, P. O- Kunjaban, P. S- New Capital Complex, Dist. -West Tripura, Pin-799006. 3. The Commissioner and Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at Secretariat Building, P. O. - Kunjaban, P. S- New Capital Complex, Dist. - West Tripura, Pin-799006. 4.
The Tripura Public Service Commission represented by its Secretary, having his office at P. O. -Agartala, P. S. - West Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin- 799001. 5. The District Magistrate and Collector, Dhalai District, Ambassa. 6. The Chief Engineer, Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at Secretariat Building, P. O. - Kunjaban, P. S- New Capital Complex, Dist. - West Tripura, Pin-799006. ......... Respondent(s). For Applicant(s) : Mrs. Sujata Deb (Gupta), Advocate, Mr. Ramprasad Gope, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. N. Bhattacharyya, G. A. , Mr. Kundan Pandey Advocate. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Order 08/01/2026 1. This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 1133 days in filing this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 2.
A reading of the application filed indicates that the applicant had been diagnosed with Bronchitis and serious pulmonary infection ever since 07. 09. 2021, and has been undergoing treatment at Hyderabad. 3. The applicant also blames the senior counsel, who had appeared for him before the Single Judge, for not informing him about the result of the case. 4. Firstly, the illness pleaded by the applicant, cannot be a ground for condoning the inordinate delay of 1133 days in filing this appeal. 5. Secondly, senior counsel are engaged to argue cases through a junior counsel; and as per norms, senior counsel is not supposed to inform the client about the fate of the case. In our opinion, it is the duty of the party to find out the fate of his case, and he cannot blame the counsel, that too a senior counsel, for not informing him about what happened to the case. It is unfortunate that such allegations are leveled against a senior counsel by the applicant. 6.
Moreover, when the applicant had been able to travel to Hyderabad from 2021 to 2023, we do not see why he could not have approached the counsel on record available at Agartala, to find out the fate of his case. 7. Therefore, this interlocutory application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ) Pijush/ Digitally signed by PIJUSH KANTI NAG PIJUSH KANTI NAG Date: 2026. 01. 13 12:34:39 +05'30'
Source: High Court of Tripura. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.