Partly allowed

Abdul Karim Molla v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC7 Mar 2024WPA/325/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, holding a lease for pisciculture, sought protection against the private respondent filling the pond. The court, noting an existing Section 144 CrPC order, directed respondents to enquire into the allegations of illegal filling within four weeks and take action if a prima facie violation is established.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to enquire into the alleged illegal filling of the water body within four weeks and take action if a violation is established.

Abdul Karim Molla Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

17 07.03.2024 mb

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

W.P.A. No. 325 of 2024

¶4

Abdul Karim Molla

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mondal …for the petitioner

¶8

Mr. Jahar Dutta, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mondal …for the State

¶9

The petitioner complains that the petitioner, despite having obtained a lease agreement to conduct pisciculture over the water body, which is the subject matter herein, the petitioner is being prevented from doing so due to hectic attempts of the private respondent to fill up the pond and make constructions thereon.

¶10

It is submitted that though the petitioner made representations and complaints, no steps have yet been taken thereon. The petitioner is also armed with an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but fears that he would not be able to conduct pisciculture due to the influence of the private respondent in the locality.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the State.

¶12

Since the petitioner is enjoying an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

¶13

¶14

is always at liberty to renew the same, no particular direction need be passed on such count. It is obviously expected that the Officer-in-Charge of the Baruipur Police Station, that is, the respondent no. 6 herein, shall take care to implement the said order.

¶15

Insofar as the representations of the petitioner and the complaints regarding alleged filling up of water body is concerned, the respondent 3 and 5 are directed to immediately enquire into the matter in accordance with law, if necessary upon notice to the petitioner and the private respondent, and come to a prima facie conclusion as to whether the water body has been filled.

¶16

Such exercise shall be concluded positively within four weeks from date.

¶17

In the event the respondent nos. 3 and/or 5 come to the conclusion that there is prima facie violation of law and procedure by the private respondent attempting to fill up the water body-inquestion, the said respondents shall take immediate action in accordance with law to prevent such illegal activities with regard to the water body immediately thereafter.

¶18

Parties shall act on the server copy of this order, without insisting upon prior production of a certified copy thereof.

¶19

¶20

There will be no order as to costs.

¶21

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶22

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Abdul Karim Molla v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Karim Molla 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Riyazuddin Vs Cesc Limited and Anr.

Ananda Kumar Sharma Vs Cesc Ltd. and Ors.

Dipak Das Vs Union of India and Ors.

Saurabh Muklania Vs National Jute Manufactures Corporation Limited and Ors.

Samir Sarkar Vs W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and Ors.

Bilkis Pervin Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.