Disposed

Shri. Subal Roy v. the Director of Agriculture and Anr.

Calcutta HC8 Jan 2026WPA/4/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking electricity connection for agricultural use; application rejected for want of a No Objection Certificate from the Director of Agriculture, whose representations remained undisposed of amid disputed facts. The court declined to enter the merits and directed the respondent to hold a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order by 16th March 2026.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri. Subal Roy Vs the Director of Agriculture and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶3

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

WPA/4/2026

Shri Subal Roy

Vs.

The Director of Agriculture and another

¶9

Mr. Ananda Halder … for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das … for the respondent no.1 Mr. S. C. Mishra … for the respondent no.2

¶10

January 8, 2026 [SR] Item No.3

¶11

The petitioner is seeking electricity connection for agricultural purpose in the subject land. The petitioner applied before the appropriate authority but his application stood rejected as the same was not accompanied by a “No Objection Certificate” issued by the Director of Agriculture, being the respondent no.1.

¶12

On behalf of the respondent no.1, it is submitted that the land does not belong to the petitioner and furthermore, the electricity connection is sought for maintaining a cowshed instead the same being strictly used for irrigation purpose.

¶13

After hearing the submissions made by the parties and the factual assertions and denials from the respective parties, I find that the matter involves certain disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into in a writ jurisdiction at this stage. The petitioner has made representations before the respondent no.1 on 21^st July, 2025 (at page 32 of the writ petition) and 15^th September, 2025 which have not been disposed of as yet.

¶14

¶15

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that justice would be sub-served, if the respondent no.1 is directed to give a personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order either in favour of granting of “No Objection Certificate” or refusing the same upon considering the materials that may be produced by the petitioner before the respondent no.1.

¶16

The entire exercise should be completed by 16^th March, 2026. The respondent no.1 shall assign specific reason referring to the documents relied upon by the petitioner in support of his claim. The respondent no.1 shall also give a reasonable time to the petitioner to collect the documents and appear before him for the hearing. Immediately upon passing of the order, the same should be communicated to the petitioner.

¶17

The respondent no.1 shall be free to decide all issues independently without being influenced by any observation made in this order. I also make it clear that I have not entered into merits and all the points are left open to be decided by the respondent no.1

¶18

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

( Arindam Mukherjee, J. )

Shri. Subal Roy v. the Director of Agriculture and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri. Subal Roy v. the Director of Agriculture and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ops Associates Vs Garrison Engineer (I)

Prasur Electrical and Engineer Company Vs Garrison Engineer

Prasur Electrical and Engineer Company Vs Garrison Engineer

Shri.Tarapada Roy Vs the Superintending Engineer and Anr.

Saraswathi Halder Vs the Superintending Engineer and Anr.

Shri.Gobinda Biswas Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Anr.