Skeli Limited, Formerly Known As Startrade Vypaar Limited vs. Joint Commissioner. Member (Svldrs), Designated Committee, Kolkata North Commiss. Kolkata And Ors

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the inordinate delay in approaching the Court. While no specific period of limitation is prescribed for writ petitions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Bhailal Bhai, which states that writ petitions should generally not be entertained after the expiry of the period within which a suit could have been filed on the same cause of action. The explanation provided by the petitioner for the delay of over four years was found to be unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The issue of jurisdiction of the Designated Committee was not directly decided as the petition was dismissed on the ground of delay.

Facts

The petitioner, Skeli Limited, filed an application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS-1) on December 12, 2019. The Designated Committee, by an order dated January 14/15, 2021, rejected the application. The grounds for rejection were that the petitioner's case pertained to the Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, and a writ petition challenging an order in original against the petitioner was pending before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Committee concluded it lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner challenged this rejection order before the Calcutta High Court via a writ petition filed on August 29, 2025, more than four years after the impugned order. The petitioner sought to explain this delay by stating they were awaiting rectification of the order as per Instruction No. 01/2021-CX and the outcome of the writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Designated Committee had the jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s application under the SVLDRS-1 Scheme, considering the petitioner's registration under the Kolkata North Commissionerate? (Question of law) Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that since their registration was under the Kolkata North Commissionerate, they rightly approached the Designated Committee, and the Committee possessed the jurisdiction to entertain their application. Therefore, the rejection order was unsustainable. Revenue's argument: The revenue argued that the Designated Committee correctly held it lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner's case pertained to the Visakhapatnam Commissionerate and a writ petition was pending before the Andhra Pradesh High Court concerning an order in original against the petitioner. 2. Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Calcutta High Court was maintainable, given the significant delay in approaching the Court? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's argument: The petitioner attempted to explain the delay by stating they were awaiting rectification of the impugned order and the outcome of the writ petition filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Revenue's argument: Not recorded in the judgment.