|
HCAL 170/2012
[2019] HKCFI 1997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINSTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 170 OF 2012
________________
| Re: |
PALASH BAKCHI |
Applicant |
________________
Before: Hon Fung J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 6 August 2019
Date of Decision: 6 August 2019
____________________
D E C I S I O N
____________________
1. The applicant applied for extension of time to lodge an appeal against the refusal to grant leave for judicial review.
2. The Applicant applied for leave to issue judicial review in December 2012. The case was dealt with on paper without oral hearing. The decision as recorded in the CALL-1 Form with reasons thereof was sent to the applicant by registered post in February 2013. He claimed that he did not receive the letter because he had given an address of a friend for the purpose of application for leave to apply for judicial review.
3. There was no satisfactory reason as to why he used the address of a friend in Ma Tau Wai as stated in Form 86 while he was then living in Kam Tin, Yuen Long.
4. The Court has sent two documents to the applicant at that Ma Tau Wai address. The first document was an Order staying this application pending Legal Aid application on 13 December 2012. The second was to send of the CALL-1 Form on 5 February 2013. They were both sent by registered post and the mail had not been returned by the Post Office.
5. The applicant claimed that he had heard nothing from the Court during the lapse of six years from 2013 and to this year but there was no satisfactory explanation as to why he had not followed the matter up with the Court earlier, say within half a year of his original application.
6. Apart from the delay, he was asked whether he had any grounds of appeal against the CALL-1 Form and he said he had not received the CALL-1 Form. That is contrary to his acknowledgement of receipt of the CALL-1 Form in April this year earlier this morning before he was asked about the content of the CALL-1 Form. He was then explained the contents of the CALL-1 Form by the interpreter.
7. The application for leave to extend time for appeal must show reasonably arguable grounds of appeal. Apart from repeating his case before the Tribunal as well as in his Form 86, he had not pointed out any error in the judicial review decision itself.
8. Hence, the application for the extension of time to lodge an appeal is refused.
| |
(B. Fung) |
| |
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
The applicant appeared in person
|