Sekh Mustak Ali and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sekh Mustak Ali and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions to respondent no.6: treat the letter dated 30.09.2024 as the petitioners' representation, give the petitioners or their authorized representative an opportunity of hearing, pass a reasoned order and communicate it forthwith (preferably by email if email details are provided), completing the whole exercise within 60 working days of receipt of the server copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no.6 must consider the petitioners' letter dated 30.09.2024 as their representation and pass a reasoned order thereon after affording a hearing, in respect of the alleged utilization of their land for a metal road from Baksi to Kuliaghat without acquisition or adequate compensation.

Court's answer

The court directs respondent no.6 to consider the letter dated 30.09.2024 written by the writ petitioners as their representation.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no.6 is further directed to give an opportunity of hearing either to the writ petitioners or to their authorized representative and thereafter pass a reasoned order.

Key takeaways

The reasoned order is to be communicated forthwith to the writ petitioners, preferably by email if their email details are provided at the time of hearing.ratio¶7
The entire exercise (consideration of the representation, hearing, reasoned order and communication) is to be completed within 60 working days from receipt of the server copy of this order.ratio¶8
Liberty is given to the petitioners' learned advocate on record to communicate the server copy of the order to respondent no.6, who is directed to act on the server copy; the parties are likewise to act on the server copy.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPA 6423 of 2025), order dated April 22, 2025, by Partha Sarathi Sen, J. Petitioners alleged that the PWD authority utilized a substantial portion of their land for construction of a metal road from Baksi to Kuliaghat without acquisition or adequate compensation, and that respondent nos. 2 and 6 took no action on their letter dated 30.09.2024. On the State's suggestion, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent no.6 to consider that letter as the petitioners' representation, afford a hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representative, pass a reasoned order and communicate it forthwith (preferably by email if email details are supplied at the hearing), the entire exercise to be completed within 60 working days of receipt of the server copy of the order; liberty given to the petitioners' advocate-on-record to transmit the server copy, on which the respondent is to act. No statute or precedent was cited.

April 22, 2025 Sl. No.10 Court No.19 s.biswas

WPA 6423 of 2025

Sekh Mustak Ali and another vs. The State of West Bengal and others

Mr. Sankar Paul Ms. Shipra Roy … for the petitioners Mr. Chandi Charan De, AGP Mr. Anirban Sarkar ... for the State 1. In course of hearing, Ms. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, at the very outset draws attention of this court to page nos.12 to 13 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the letter dated 30.09.2024 addressed to the respondent no.2 and respondent no.6. It is submitted by Ms. Roy that under cover of the said letter dated 30.09.2024, it has been urged before the said two authorities that for the purpose of construction of metal road from Baksi to Kuliaghat, the PWD authority has utilized a substantial portion of land of the writ petitioners without taking any steps for acquisition of the said portion of the land and thus the petitioners were not awarded with any adequate compensation. It is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that despite receipt of such letter the said respondents, namely; the respondent no.2 and respondent no.6 sat tight over the matter and did nothing.

2

In course of hearing, Mr. Dey learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State and its functionaries submits before this court that the instant writ petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent no.6 to consider the letter dated 30.09.2024 as a representation of the writ petitioners and to pass a reasoned order thereon after giving a chance of hearing to the writ petitioners.

On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this court and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the learned advocates for the contending parties, this court directs the respondent no.6 to consider the letter dated 30.09.2024 as written by the writ petitioners as their representation. He is further directed to give an opportunity of hearing either to the writ petitioners or to their authorized representative and thereafter shall pass a reasoned order and shall communicate the same forthwith to the writ petitioners preferably by email, if the email details of the writ petitioners are provided to him at the time of hearing.

The entire exercise as indicated in the foregoing paragraph is to be completed within a period of 60 working days from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order.

3

Liberty is given to the learned advocate on record for the petitioners to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent no.6, who is directed to act on the server copy of this order.

With the aforementioned observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

The parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of the order.

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)