PIL sought stopping of an allegedly illegal brickfield at Hareknagar, Murshidabad, said to lack quarry permits despite PCB consent. The Court declined to decide merits and directed the District Magistrate, Murshidabad to investigate legality of operations and take a reasoned decision after hearing parties within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
29.07.2026
rpan/ 02
WPA (P) 99 of 202 6
Morgina Bibi
– Versus – State of West Bengal & Others
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharjee, Mr. Md. Yusuf Ali … for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Mr. Loknath Chatterjee, Mr. Madhu Jana, Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar, Mr. M. M. Ghosh, … for the State/Respondents.
Mr. Soumya Mukherjee … for the Respondent no.9. Mr. Arindam Kundu, Mr. Aniket Nanda, Mr. Rounak Dey, Ms. Rumpa Adhikary … for the Respondent nos.10 & 11.
The present writ petition, in the form of a Public Interest
Litigation (in short, "PIL"), has been preferred seeking a direction upon the concerned respondents to take immediate steps to stop the operation of a brickfield, namely, A.B.M. Brickfield, situated at Hareknagar, Police Station – Beldanga, District – Murshidabad, within the jurisdiction of Debkundu Gram Panchayat.
Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the private respondent nos. 10 and 11 have been operating a brickfield illegally without complying with the law and the guidelines governing the field. He submits that the said brickfield is being operated from certain agricultural plots of land. He further submits that conversion of the land is
2
mandatory for operating such a brickfield. Referring to certain documents forming part of the writ petition, he submits that although the Pollution Control Board has granted consent to establish and/or operate the brickfield and the concerned respondent is collecting royalty from the private respondent nos. 10 and 11, no quarry permit has been issued permitting them to excavate earth required for running the said brickfield. He argues that the illegal operation of the said brickfield has become an immense threat to the environment of the locality and is thereby causing various hazards to the lives of the people residing therein. Such circumstances prompted the petitioner, a public-spirited person, to approach this Court by filing the present PIL. He urges that immediate intervention of this Court is warranted to stop the operation of such an illegal brickfield in the locality.
Mr. Kundu, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent nos. 10 and 11, denies and disputes the contentions advanced by Mr. Bhattacharjee. Referring to certain portions of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the private respondents, he submits that the brickfield is being operated upon obtaining the necessary permission from the Pollution Control Board and that the private respondents have been paying royalty to the concerned department of the State. He further submits that the concerned Gram Panchayat has also issued a trade licence permitting them to operate the said brickfield. He asserts that fly ash is being used for manufacturing bricks and that the same is procured from the Sagardighi Thermal Power Plant.
3
Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents, produces a report prepared by the Inspector-in-Charge, Beldanga Police Station. He submits that there is a District Level Screening and Scrutiny Cell (in short, "the said Cell"), which is responsible for examining whether such a brickfield is being operated legally upon obtaining the necessary permissions from the competent authorities and upon completion of the requisite formalities. He further submits that the matter may be remitted to the said Cell for taking appropriate steps.
Mr. Bhattacharjee does not oppose the suggestion made by Mr. Mishra. He urges that if the matter is remitted to the said Cell with a direction to examine whether the said brickfield is being operated legally and, if it is found that the private respondent nos. 10 and 11 have been running the said brickfield without obtaining the necessary permissions and without following the prescribed procedure, necessary steps be taken to stop the operation of the said brickfield.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, being the respondent no.9.
Answering our query, Mr. Mishra informs the Court that the said Cell is headed by the District Magistrate of the concerned district.
In view thereof, we dispose of the PIL by directing the District Magistrate, Murshidabad, being the respondent no. 2, to cause an investigation to be conducted by a competent person or persons to ascertain whether the aforesaid brick kiln and/or brickfield is being operated illegally without obtaining the
4
requisite permissions from the competent authorities and without complying with all the necessary formalities.
It is further directed that the respondent no. 2 shall take a decision on the issue raised by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the private respondent nos. 10 and 11 and upon considering the enquiry report. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner and the private respondent nos. 10 and 11.
The entire exercise shall be carried out by the respondent no.2 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The petitioner is directed to communicate a server copy of this order to the respondent no.2 immediately.
It is clarified that we have not entered into the merits of the issue urged in the PIL and all points are kept open to be decided by the respondent no.2.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the A.B.M. Brickfield is being operated illegally without requisite permissions, warranting court intervention.
Whether the matter should be remitted to the District Level Screening and Scrutiny Cell for enquiry.
Morgina Bibi
State of West Bengal
West Bengal Pollution Control Board (respondent no.9)
Respondent nos. 10 and 11 (operators of A.B.M. Brickfield)
Tapabrata Chakraborty
Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
