Paresh Ram Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Paresh Ram Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction upon respondent no.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11th May, 2026 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, private respondents and other interested parties, and to take a decision in accordance with law, to be communicated to the petitioner within six weeks along with a copy of the writ petition; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether action is required in respect of the alleged illegal occupation of the publicly funded passenger waiting shed 'Nirapad Ashray' at Canning Hospital More, allegedly converted into a de facto political party office, and whether respondent no.3 should be directed to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 11th May, 2026.

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon respondent no.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11th May, 2026, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the private respondents and other interested parties, if any, and to take a decision in accordance with law; such decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of communication of the order, along with a copy of the writ petition.

Key takeaways

The Court made it clear that it has not gone into the merits of the petitioner's claim and all points are kept open to be considered by respondent no.3.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation alleging that a passenger waiting shed named 'Nirapad Ashray', constructed at Canning Hospital More within the Canning Paschim Assembly Constituency entirely out of MPLAD funds and MLA (Local Area Development) funds for the benefit of the commuting public, was illegally occupied by one Arnab Roy, a worker of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and converted into a de facto political party office; the petitioner's complaint dated 11th May, 2026 before respondent no.3 went unanswered. The Court, with no objection from the State, disposed of the writ petition with a direction upon respondent no.3 to consider the representation dated 11th May, 2026 upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the private respondents and other interested parties, and to take a decision in accordance with law, to be communicated within six weeks along with a copy of the writ petition. The Court expressly did not go into the merits and kept all points open; there was no order as to costs.

20.07.2026 Item No.09 Court No.01 KCP

WPA(P) 344 of 2026

Sri Paresh Ram Das

- Versus - State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee Mr. Pintu Karar Mr. Prabir Mondol Mr. R. Ahmad Khan …. For the Petitioner Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Ld. A.A.G. Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Mr. Sunny Nandy

…. For the State

Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that a passenger waiting shed named ‘Nirapad Ashray’ was constructed at Canning Hospital More within the Canning Paschim Assembly Constituency, out of MPLAD funds and MLA (Local Area Development) funds, exclusively for the benefit, comfort and convenience of the general commuting public. The said structure was raised entirely out of public funds for a specific public purpose. However, the said passenger waiting shed has now been illegally occupied by one Arnab Roy, worker of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who has converted the said public structure into a de facto political party office. Stating such facts, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner before the respondent no.3 on 11^th May, 2026. However, the same has not been responded to

2

and as such, the petitioner was constrained to prefer the instant Public Interest Litigation (in short, PIL).

Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has no objection, in the event, the said representation is relegated to the said respondent no.3 for consideration.

In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.3 to consider the representation dated 11^th May, 2026 submitted by the petitioner, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the private respondents and other interested parties, if any, and to take a decision in accordance with law. Such decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order along with a copy of the writ petition.

We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s claim and all points are kept open to be considered by the respondent no.3.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

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

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)