Nibedita Das Pandit Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Nibedita Das Pandit Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The appeal and the connected application (CAN 1 of 2026) were disposed of with the above observations, without further interference with the learned Single Judge's order; parties directed to act on the basis of the server copy of the order; leave granted to the learned Advocate on record for the appellant to cure the defect in the appeal.

Issue for consideration

Whether, by taking advantage of the learned Single Judge's order impugned before the Division Bench, an illegal cow market was being run without a valid licence — i.e., whether the Single Judge's order permitted operation of a market without any licence.

Court's answer

The learned Single Judge did not allow operation of a market without any licence.

Ratio / Principle

The learned Single Judge set aside the order dated December 12, 2024 and directed the Executive Officer, Chandipur Panchayat Samiti to decide the issue afresh as to whether licence could be granted to respondent no.8 on the basis of a conversion certificate.

Key takeaways

The appellant's apprehension of illegal operation of a cow 'haat' from the plot in question on the strength of the impugned order is misconceived; nobody can operate any market illegally and without any licence from the Samiti.ratio¶¶23
The order of the learned Single Judge does not call for further interference, the Division Bench having clarified the position; the authority has already been directed to decide the matter expeditiously and it is expected that this will be done.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MAT 429 of 2026 (with CAN 1 of 2026), decided 17.03.2026 — Appeal filed by the added respondent in WPA 30021 of 2024 (Nibedita Das Pandit v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) against the learned Single Judge's order, which had set aside an order dated December 12, 2024 and directed the Executive Officer, Chandipur Panchayat Samiti to decide afresh whether a licence could be granted to respondent no.8 (the writ petitioner) on the basis of a land conversion certificate dated September 28, 2004 (plot converted from 'Jaal' to 'Hatkhola'/cow market), within one month of communication. The Division Bench (Shampa Sarkar, J. and Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) held that the Single Judge did not allow operation of a market without any licence; the appellant's grievance that an illegal cow market/'haat' was being run on the strength of that order was misconceived, since nobody can operate any market illegally and without a licence from the Samiti. The Single Judge's order did not call for further interference; the appeal and connected application were disposed of with these observations, parties to act on the server copy, and leave granted to cure defects in the appeal.

Item No.21

17.03.2026 Court. No. 12 GB

MAT 429 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026

Nibedita Das Pandit

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Shambhunath Ray, Mr. Samir Kumar Adhikari, Ms. Munmun Das, Mr. Kazi Asif Iqbal

… for the Appellant.

Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mondal, Mr. Abhirup Halder

… for the Respondent No.8

Ms. Jyotsna Roy Mukherjee, Ms. Srijani Mukherjee, Ms. P. Dutta

… for the State.

This appeal has been filed at the instance of the added respondent in WPA 30021 of 2024.

We find that the learned Judge, upon finding that the writ petitioner was in possession of a conversion certificate, by which the relevant plot of land from ‘Jaal’ to ‘Hatkhola’ (cow market), relegated the writ petitioner/respondent no.8 to the concerned authority and directed that the land conversion certificate shall be produced before the Executive Officer, Chandipur Panchayat Samiti. The Executive Officer, Chandipur Panchayat Samiti was directed to take a fresh decision regarding the issuance of the licence, in light of the aforesaid land conversion

2

certificate dated September 28, 2004, within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order.

5.

The appellant is aggrieved by the order on the ground that, by taking advantage of the said order impugned before us, an illegal cow market was being run without a valid licence.

We are of the view that the learned Single Judge did not allow operation of a market without any licence. The learned Single Judge set aside the order dated December 12, 2024 and directed the Executive Officer, Chandipur Panchayat Samiti to decide the issue afresh, as to whether licence could be granted to the respondent no.8 on the basis of a conversion certificate.

Under such circumstances, the apprehension of illegal operation of a cow ‘haat’ from the plot in question on the strength of the order impugned before us, is misconceived. Nobody can operate any market illegally and without any licence from the Samiti.

Under such circumstances, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of with the above observations. The order of the learned Single Judge does not call for further interference as we have clarified the position. The authority has already been directed by the learned Single Judge to decide the

3

matter expeditiously. It is expected that the same will be done.

Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.

Leave is granted to cure the defect in the appeal by the learned Advocate on record for the appellant.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)