Quashed¶8

Washim Goldar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC21 May 2026WPA/11449/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Washim Goldar v State of West Bengal; WPA 11449 of 2026; Howrah Municipal Corporation; Assistant Engineer Borough-VII; notice dated 12th May 2026 quashed as without jurisdiction; West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act 1984; notification dated 20th July 2017; water body RS plot no. 279 LR plot nos. 283 284 Mouza Unsani JL no. 110 PS Jagacha Howrah; Commissioner of Police Howrah Police Commissionerate; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya J.; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 12th May, 2026 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Borough-VII, Howrah Municipal Corporation was set aside and quashed as being without jurisdiction; the writ petition was disposed of with the clarification that appropriate authorities remain free to take steps in accordance with law against any attempt by the petitioner to fill up a water body.

Washim Goldar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 12th May, 2026 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Borough-VII, Howrah Municipal Corporation under the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 was issued by an authority competent to exercise powers under that Act. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

By the notification dated 20th July, 2017, the Municipal Commissioner/Commissioner/Executive Officer of Municipal Corporation/Municipalities/Notified Area Authority are vested with authority to exercise jurisdiction under the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984; the Assistant Engineer, Borough-VII, Howrah Municipal Corporation lacks such authority.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The notice dated 12th May, 2026 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Borough-VII is without jurisdiction and, solely for that reason, is set aside and quashed.

¶8

Key takeaways

The quashing of the notice shall not prevent the appropriate authorities from taking steps in accordance with law in the event the petitioner attempts to fill up any water body.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Washim Goldar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 11449 of 2026 (decided 21-05-2026, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) - The petitioner challenged a notice dated 12th May, 2026 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Borough-VII, Howrah Municipal Corporation to the Commissioner of Police, Howrah Police Commissionerate requesting strict vigil and action to prevent illegal filling up of a water body being RS plot no. 279 and LR plot nos. 283 and 284, Mouza Unsani, J.L. no. 110, P.S. Jagacha, District Howrah. On a reading of the notification dated 20th July, 2017, the Court found that the Municipal Commissioner/Commissioner/Executive Officer of Municipal Corporation/Municipalities/Notified Area Authority alone are vested with authority to exercise jurisdiction under the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984, and that the Assistant Engineer who issued the notice lacked such authority. Holding the notice without jurisdiction, the Court set it aside and quashed it solely on that ground, while clarifying that its order would not prevent appropriate authorities from taking steps in accordance with law against any attempt by the petitioner to fill up any water body. The rival contention that the plots were agricultural land per the record of rights, and the private respondent's photographic contention that they were a water body, were not adjudicated. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

Item21-05-2026 11. WPA 11449 of 2026 Ct. 19 Washim Goldar sg Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Abhratosh Mazumdar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suman Basu Mr. Ayan Banerjee Ms. Debapriya Ghosh …for the petitioner Mr. Sundipan Banerjee Mr. Ankit Sureka …for the HMC Mr. Amarta Ghose Mr. Souryadeep Ghosh …for the respondent no.8

¶2

Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. The petitioner has questioned the notice dated 12^th May, 2026 issued by the Assistant Engineer Borough-VII, Howrah Municipal Corporation requesting the Commissioner of Police, Howrah Police Commissionerate to keep a strict vigil and take necessary action to prevent illegal filling up of a water body being RS plot no. 279 and LR plot nos. 283 and 284, within Mouza Unsani, J.L. no. 110, under Police Station Jagacha in the District Howrah

¶3

Mr. Mazumder, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the notification dated July 20, 2017 and submits that the Assistant Engineer is not vested with the authority to exercise power under the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984. Mr. Mazumdar further submits that the plot in question is not a water body as would be evident from the classification of the said plots as recorded in the relevant record of rights.

¶4

The learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent places certain photographs in support of his contention that the plot in questions is a water body and not

¶5

¶6

an agricultural land.

¶7

After going through the notification dated 20^th July, 2017, this Court finds that the Municipal Commissioner/Commissioner/Executive Officer of Municipal Corporation/Municipalities/Notified area authority have been vested with the authority to exercise jurisdiction under West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984. It appears from the notice dated 12^th May, 2026 that the same was issued by the Assistant Engineer, Borough-VII, Howrah Municipal Corporation, who lacks the authority to exercise powers under the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984.

¶8

Thus, this Court holds that the notice issued by the Assistant Engineer, Borough-VII is without jurisdiction and only for such reason, the same is set aside and quashed.

¶9

It is, however, made clear that this order shall not prevent the appropriate authorities from taking steps in accordance with law in the event any attempt is made to fill up any water body by the petitioner.

¶10

With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶11

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶12

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Washim Goldar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Washim Goldar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrita Dutta Vs Saikat Mitra

Saikat Mitra Vs Amrita Dutta

Flower Valley Floriculture Pvt. Ltd. Vs Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

Badartala Madhyamik Balika Vidyamandir and Anr. Vs Principal Secretary, Land and Land Reforms and Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Dept. and Ors.

Sridip Kumar Bera Vs Union of India and Ors.

Uttam Kumar Santra Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.