Certified-copy applications must be rejected under Rule 528 when required stamps and folios remain unpaid for three days.

The petitioner produced scanned copies of both sides of the receipts relating to the impugned order, which were taken on record pursuant to an earlier direction.

He had applied on 20 and 21 January 2026 for certified copies in respect of three applications bearing serial nos. X-198 (Crl.), X-225 (Crl.) and X-224 (Crl.).

For applications X-198 and X-225, the records were called for, received by the copying section on 18 February 2026, and the certified copies were made ready on 19 and 20 February 2026, respectively.

In respect of X-224, concerning H.C. Form No. (M) 54, the petitioner did not deposit the requisite stamp/folios, and consequently the copy was not prepared.

Whether the petitioner’s allegations regarding failure or delay in supplying certified copies were supported by the official record.

Whether the copying authorities were required to reject the application and record such rejection where the requisite stamp and folios were not filed within the period prescribed under the Civil Rules and Orders of the Calcutta High Court.

Whether any further relief survived in the writ petition in view of the status of the certified-copy applications.

The Court applied Rules 523, 524, 525, 526, 527A and 528 of the Civil Rules and Orders of the Calcutta High Court, which govern the preparation and issuance of certified copies.

Rule 528 was understood to require that, if the prescribed stamp and folios are not filed within three days of notification in the prescribed manner, the application is to be rejected and an appropriate note is to be made in Register No. (R) 23.

The Court also applied the general principle that an administrative department cannot be held responsible for non-preparation of a certified copy where the applicant has failed to deposit the requisite stamp or otherwise comply with the copying requirements.

The official report demonstrated that the applications X-198 and X-225 had been processed and that the requested copies were eventually made ready after the original records were received.

Conversely, application X-224 remained incomplete because the petitioner did not supply the requisite stamp and folios.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s allegations of departmental inaction were inconsistent with the record.

Nevertheless, the Court observed that although Rule 528 contemplated rejection and a corresponding entry in Register No. (R) 23 upon failure to furnish the required materials within three days, no such rejection order appeared to have been made in the present case.

The Court therefore considered it appropriate to direct procedural compliance by the concerned Judge in charge rather than grant substantive relief against the authorities.

The concerned Judge in charge was directed to ensure strict compliance with Rules 524 to 528 of the Civil Rules and Orders of the Calcutta High Court.

Finding that nothing further survived for adjudication, the Court disposed of the writ petition, permitting all parties to act on the basis of the server copy downloaded from the Court’s official website.