Disposed

Biplab Nayek v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.Q

Calcutta HC4 Jul 2024WPA(P)/246/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest petition seeking directions for embankment construction at Haripur Mouza. Court directed District Magistrate and Collector to examine a pending representation within three weeks and inform the petitioner before disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Magistrate and Collector, South 24Parganas, to consider representation and inform petitioner.

Biplab Nayek Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.Q — Environment and Pollution | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

04.07.2024 Item No.9 gd/ssd

¶2

WPA(P)/246/2024 BIPLAB NAYEK

¶3

¶4

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

¶5

Mr. Supratick Syamal, Ms. Minakshi Majumder

¶6

..for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Jahar Lal De, Mr. Supratim Dhar ..for the State.

¶8

By way of this public interest petition the petitioner seeks for appropriate direction against the respondents for construction of an embankment at Haripur Mouza to protect the livelihood of the villagers of Haripur by utilizing the fund sanctioned for implementation of the Sundarban Embankment Reconstruction Project.

¶9

It is seen that the Irrigation and Waterways Directorate, Government of West Bengal had issued a tender notice dated 21.08.2017 for various construction of various embankment projects.

¶10

However, the subject project appears to have not been included in the said tender.

¶11

Smt. Annapurna Das and six others had filed a writ petition in WP 4393(W) of 2012 for a direction not to initiate any work of reconstruction of new river embankment at the site facing river Saptamukhi from 11.40 Kilometer towards North 300

¶12

¶13

meter at Mouza Haripur under Haripur Gram Panchayat, District South 24-Parganas without taking steps on the representation made by them.

¶14

The writ petition appears to be for compensation payable to them on account of the proposed construction of the embankment.

¶15

It is stated that the said writ petition was lastly listed on 18.05.2012 and none appeared for the petitioners and the matter was delisted.

¶16

It is submitted that no further steps were taken by said writ petitioners to move the writ petition.

¶17

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner on instruction submitted that the authorities appear to have made private negotiation with those land owners and the matter has attained finality.

¶18

In this regard, it is noted that the petitioner

¶19

has submitted a representation to the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas on 5^th April, 2024 and it is shown that the representation has been delivered as copies of the track report given by the Department of Posts has been enclosed in the stay petition.

¶20

Since the matter is now pending consideration before the District Magistrate, we direct the District Magistrate and Collector, South 24Parganas to consider the representation dated 5^th April, 2024, examine all facts and take appropriate action in accordance with law and inform the writ petitioner by

¶21

¶22

inviting as to what action is being taken or proposed to be taken.

¶23

This direction be complied with within a period of three weeks from the date on which the petitioner submits a copy of the representation along with copy of this order and all other documents by personally appearing in the Office of the District Magistrate and Collector, South 24-Parganas.

¶24

Accordingly, the matter stands disposed

¶25

of.

¶26

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

Biplab Nayek v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.Q

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biplab Nayek v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.Q

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

Rajib Kumar Acharyya Vs Shri Nanda Kumar Mishra, Chairperson, the Panskura Municipality and Anr.

Railway Contractor Labour Union and Anr. Vs Arti Ahuja

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5 (1) Kolkata Vs Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd.

Manoj Singh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Baban Paul Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sipra Dey and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.