Disposed

Gour Mohan Roy v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC21 Mar 2022WPA(P)/71/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WPA(P) 71 of 2021, the Court disposed of a PIL challenging inaction on drainage and drinking water in Mandra Gram Panchayet. Due to disputed facts on work completion, the Court permitted a fresh detailed representation to the District Magistrate for a hearing-based enquiry and directed completion within three months if defects were found.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no.2 to conduct an enquiry after hearing petitioner on incomplete work representation and take steps to complete work within three months if found incomplete.

Gour Mohan Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

18 ss/jks 21.03.2022

¶2

WPA(P) 71 of 2021

¶3

Gour Mohan Roy Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Manojit Bhattacharya Ms. Sumitra Bhattacharya (Neogi)

¶6

… … for the petitioner

¶7

Mr. Jahar Lal De Mr. Amarnath Sen

¶8

… … for the State

¶9

The petitioner has come to this Court raising a grievance that the respondent authorities have not taken any steps to improve the drainage system and sewerage management and make provision for the drinking water in Mandra Gram Panchayet, P.O.-Mandra, DistrictHooghly.

¶10

The respondent no.4, Block Development Officer has filed the affidavit-in-opposition mentioning that the tender notice and consequent work order for construction of PCC drain from Mahananda Land to Nabakumar Land via Pather Panchali was issued by the Pradhan, Mandra Gram Panchyet on 20.02.2021 and that Pakka drain has been constructed and running water facility called Pather Panchali has been made available.

¶11

In the affidavit-in-reply the stand of the petitioner is that the said facilities have not been provided till now and the work is not completed.

¶12

This disputed issue cannot be gone into in the Public Interest Litigation as the contrary stand has been

¶13

¶14

taken by the petitioner as also the respondents in respect of the extent of work which has been done.

¶15

Learned counsel for both the parties submit that the writ petition can be disposed of by directed the respondent no.2, District Magistrate to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate steps to complete the remaining work.

¶16

Hence, we dispose of the present petition permitting the petitioner to file an appropriate detailed representation before the respondent no.2 clearly mentioning the work/projects which are yet to be completed. On receipt of such representation the respondent no.2 will conduct an enquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and if any work is found to be incomplete then the necessary steps will be taken by the said respondent to ensure that the work is completed expeditiously.

¶17

Let this exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶18

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

(Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.)

¶20

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)

Gour Mohan Roy v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gour Mohan Roy v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M,Anaranjan Parui Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ataur Rahaman Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Banti Biswas and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rajesh Halder & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Achiya Laskar and Ors. Vs Unio

Subrata Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.