K.Ganeshan Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

K.Ganeshan Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District to decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law after hearing him, treating him at par with similarly situated allottees if deprivation is found, disclosing reasons otherwise, within two months from communication of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, allegedly evicted from Foreshore Road, Haddo in 2025 without an alternative allotment while similarly situated persons were given alternative land at Dollygunj, is entitled to parity/suitable accommodation in the Industrial Estate.

Court's answer

Disputed questions of fact have arisen which cannot be decided by a writ Court; the factual background and the issues raised require consideration on merits by an appropriate authority of the Administration.

Ratio / Principle

Without making any observations on the merits of the claim or the allegations against the Administration, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District to dispose of the petitioner's representation (page 51, Annexure P-7) in accordance with law, upon hearing the petitioner and considering all issues on merits.

Key takeaways

If it is found that similarly situated persons were given alternative land but the petitioner was deprived, steps should be taken to treat the petitioner at par with those allottees; otherwise, reasons shall be disclosed and the order communicated to the petitioner, who shall be heard and allowed to produce documents and merits supporting his claim.ratio¶18
The entire exercise (disposal of the representation) shall be completed within two months from the date of communication of the order.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPA/515/2025), Circuit Bench at Port Blair, Calcutta High Court — disposed of with directions (Shampa Sarkar, J., November 7, 2025). The petitioner, whose workshop at Foreshore Road, Haddo was allegedly evicted in 2025 without alternative allotment — while similarly situated persons operating from the same road were given alternative land at Dollygunj — sought allotment of suitable accommodation in the Industrial Estate; a similar issue had earlier failed in a civil suit without stay or injunction. Observing that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by a writ Court, and without expressing any view on the merits or the allegations against the Administration, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, Sri Vijaya Puram to dispose of the petitioner's representation (page 51, Annexure P-7) in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and considering all issues on merits; if similarly situated persons were allotted alternative land and the petitioner deprived, he is to be treated at par with those allottees, failing which a reasoned order shall be communicated to him, permitting him to produce documents in support of his claim. The entire exercise is to be completed within two months from communication of the order.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

WPA/515/2025

K. Ganeshan

Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and another

Mr. Mohammed Tabraiz … for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das … for the respondents

November 7, 2025 [SR] Item No. 8

Disputed questions of facts have arisen, which cannot be decided by a writ Court.

This Court is of the view that the factual background, coupled with the issues raised by Mr. Tabraiz, learned advocate for the petitioner and the reliefs which were prayed for by the petitioner in the civil suit, require consideration of the matter on merits by an appropriate authority of the Administration.

Mr. Tabraiz submits that the petitioner operated a workshop. Similarly situated persons, like the petitioner, were given an alternative land at Dollygunj and they were also operating from the Foreshore road, Haddo. Whereas sometime in 2025, the petitioner was evicted from Foreshore Road, Haddo, without grant of an alternate land.

Ms. Babita Das, learned advocate for the respondents submits that similar issue had been raised by the petitioner in a civil suit. The petitioner was unsuccessful in obtaining any stay and/or injunction and hence, has approached this Court with unclean hands.

2

The writ petition discloses a representation of the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, Sri Vijaya Puram with a request for allotment of a suitable accommodation in the Industrial Estate.

Without making any observations on the merits of the claim of the petitioner or the allegations leveled against the Administration, this Court disposes the writ petition with a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District to dispose of the representation of the petitioner , which appears at page 51, Annexure P-7, in accordance with law, upon hearing the petitioner and upon considering all the issues on merits.

If it is found that the similarly situated persons were given alternative land, but the petitioner was deprived, in that event, steps should be taken to treat the petitioner at par with those allottees. However, if there is any reason for not granting any relief to the petitioner, reasons shall be disclosed and order shall be communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be heard. The petitioner shall be allowed to produce the document and merits in support of the claim.

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Parties to act in terms of the server copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Hon’ble Court.

( Shampa Sarkar, J. )