D. Ravi Vs Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

D. Ravi Vs Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction upon the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District to dispose of the petitioner's representation (page 48, Annexure P-7) in accordance with law, upon hearing the petitioner and considering all issues on merits, within two months; if deprivation vis-a-vis similarly situated allottees is found, the petitioner is to be treated at par with them, failing which a reasoned order shall be communicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, which has given rise to disputed questions of fact, can be decided by a writ Court, or whether the matter requires consideration on merits by an appropriate authority of the Administration. +1 more

Court's answer

Disputed questions of facts have arisen which cannot be decided by a writ Court; the factual background, coupled with the issues raised by the petitioner's counsel and the reliefs prayed for in the civil suit, require consideration of the matter 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 (which appears at page 48, Annexure P-7) in accordance with law, upon hearing the petitioner and upon considering all the issues on merits.

Key takeaways

If it is found that similarly situated persons were given alternative land but the petitioner was deprived, steps shall be taken to treat the petitioner at par with those allottees; however, if there is any reason for not granting relief, reasons shall be disclosed and the order communicated to the petitioner, who shall be heard and allowed to produce documents and merits in support of the claim.ratio¶¶19
The entire exercise of disposing of the representation shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPA/520/2025), High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair), Shampa Sarkar, J. (November 7, 2025): Disposed of without entering into merits, the Court holding that disputed questions of facts had arisen which cannot be decided by a writ Court. The petitioner, D. Ravi, alleged that he operated a workshop at Foreshore Road, Haddo and was evicted sometime in 2025 without grant of alternate land, whereas similarly situated persons were given alternative land at Dollygunj; a civil suit was stated to be pending. The writ petition disclosed an un-disposed representation to the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District seeking allotment of suitable accommodation in the Industrial Estate (Annexure P-7, page 48). The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the representation in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and considering all issues on merits; if similarly situated persons were given alternative land but the petitioner was deprived, steps were to be taken to treat him at par with those allottees, and otherwise a reasoned order was to be disclosed and communicated, the petitioner being entitled to be heard and to produce documents. The entire exercise was to be completed within two months from communication of the order.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

WPA/520/2025

D. Ravi

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. 12

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 a civil suit is pending.

The writ petition discloses a representation of the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman

2

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 48, 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. )