Bholanath Mitra Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

¶1

10.07.2026 Item No.2 Ct. No. 19 PG

¶2

WPA 14094 of 2026 With

¶3

I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 Sri Bholanath Mitra

¶4

Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy Mr. Pritam Choudhury Mr. Sourav Mondal ……….for the petitioner

¶6

Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, Ld. AGP Mr. Madhu Jana Ms. Tanushree Ghosh …..for the State

¶7

Mr. Arnab Ray Ms. Shrabanti Chatterjee Mr. Shirsho Banerjee …….for the respondent nos. 4 to 6

¶8

Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record.

¶9

The writ petitioner, the respondent/State and the respondent nos. 4 to 6 are represented by their respective learned counsel.

¶10

In this writ petition, the order dated 09.01.2025 as passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, West Bengal, who is the respondent no. 8 herein is impugned.

¶11

At the time of hearing, Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset, draws attention of this Court to the order impugned. Attention of this Court is also drawn to page no. 40 onwards being a copy of the memo of appeal,

¶12

2

¶13

as has been filed before the West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal (‘tribunal’ for short), wherein the self-same order dated 09.01.2025 was assailed.

¶14

At this juncture, Mr. Roy took me to the different orders, as passed by the said tribunal in the said appeal being Appeal Case No. 38 of 2025. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that in the said appeal, the present writ petitioner being the appellant has filed application for stay of the order impugned therein. However, on perusal of the order dated 10.06.2026, it would reveal that on the said date, the said tribunal could not take up hearing of the stay application on account of non-availability of the quorum.

¶15

It is submitted that in the meantime, the respondent authorities have initiated a certificate proceeding, as would be evident from page nos. 227 and 228 of the instant writ petition.

¶16

It is further submitted by Mr. Roy that in the event the said stay application is not heard by the said tribunal, the very purpose of filing the said appeal before the tribunal would be frustrated since there is every chance that the respondent authorities shall proceed with the

¶17

3

¶18

certificate proceeding rendering the appeal infructuous.

¶19

It is further submitted by Mr. Roy that from page no. 227 of the instant writ petition, it would reveal that even an auction notice has been issued, which has been fixed on 30.06.2026.

¶20

It is further submitted by Mr. Roy that on account of such precarious situation, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the self-same impugned order, wherein a stay has been granted on the earlier occasion i.e. on 23.06.2026 in respect of the holding of auction by the respondent authorities pursuant to the notice dated 21.05.2026, a copy of which has been annexed at page no.227 of the writ petition.

¶21

Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the writ petitioner cannot agitate his grievances before two forums simultaneously.

¶22

It is further submitted that the instant writ petition has been filed after suppression of material facts.

¶23

4

¶24

Learned advocate for the respondent/State supports the contention of the respondent nos. 4 to 6.

¶25

On careful perusal of the entire materials, as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this Court finds that the writ petitioner was compelled to approach this Court impugning the self-same order dated 09.01.2025, as passed by the respondent no. 8 authority in view of the fact that in the appeal, which is pending before the tribunal challenging the self-same impugned order, a stay application has been filed by the appellant (who is the writ petitioner herein), however, the stay application could not be heard and disposed of on account of nonavailability of quorum.

¶26

Such being the position, this Court, while disposing the instant writ petition, directs the tribunal to dispose of the stay application, as filed by the present writ petitioner as appellant therein in connection with the Appeal Case No. 38 of 2025 positively within the last day of July 2026.

¶27

Till that date, the operation of the order impugned dated 09.01.2025 and/or operation

¶28

5

¶29

of the notice of auction dated 21.05.2026 shall remain stayed.

¶30

It is further made clear that in the event the said tribunal, for any reason whatsoever could not hear and dispose of the stay application, as filed by the appellant in connection with the Appeal Case No. 38 of 2025 by the last day of August 2026, the operation of the aforementioned two orders shall remain stayed till the last day of December 2026 or till further order, as would be passed by the said tribunal.

¶31

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

¶32

With the disposal of the instant writ petition, all pending interlocutory applications including I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 are also disposed of.

¶33

Before parting with, it is however, made clear that this Court while disposing the instant writ petition, this Court has not gone into its merits and thus, all points are kept open for adjudication by the said tribunal.

¶34

The said tribunal is further requested to dispose of the said appeal as well as the pending stay application without being

¶35

6

¶36

influenced by the earlier order dated

¶37

23.06.2026.

¶38

Liberty is given to the learned advocate on record of the present writ petitioner to communicate server copy of this order to the tribunal. The tribunal shall act on the server copy of this order.

¶39

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

¶40

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

Bholanath Mitra v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bholanath Mitra 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Karmakar Vs Abul Kalam Azad Islam, the Commissioner, Durgapur Municipal Corporation

Amiya Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mohan Dandapat and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ajmal Uddin Sekh @ Ajmoluddin Sk. @ Ajmal Uddin Sk. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Saikat Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Jyotish Halder Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.