The court upheld the direction to restore the wetland in accordance with the statutory provisions, emphasizing the limited scope of interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal and the protection of the parties' rights in the pending civil proceeding.

BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.

1. By consent of the parties, both the appeals are treated as on day’s list and taken up for consideration along with the respective applications for stay.

2. Both the appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 21st November, 2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 8456 (W) of 2015 together with CAN 4034 of 2017 and CAN 7824 of 2017 (Ranjit Kumar Sapui vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.).

3. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dispose of the writ petition with a direction upon the concerned authorities to act in terms of the provisions contained under East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006 and restore the wetland to its former shape.

4. Both the appeals have been preferred by the private respondents in the writ proceeding, namely, Motilal Mondal and Madhusudan Mondal, being the private respondent nos.10 and 11, respectively.

5. It is contended on behalf of Madhusudan Mondal (being the private respondent no.11 in the writ proceeding) that the issue is essentially related to a private dispute between the respondent/writ petitioner on one hand and the private respondents on the other. As such, the learned Single Judge ought not to have given a direction upon the concerned authorities to act in terms of the statutory provisions as contained under East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006.

6. Upon perusing the impugned judgment and order as well as the papers before us, we notice that the learned Single Judge while proceeding to dispose of the writ petition has taken note of the pendency of a civil proceeding. The learned Single Judge has clarified that none of the observations made in the order impugned would be construed to prejudice any of the rights and contentions of any of the parties to the pending suit. The learned Single Judge has further observed in the impugned order to the effect that the rights of the private parties inter se amongst themselves with regard to the property-in question will be decided in the pending suit or any other litigation that the parties may litigate before an appropriate forum.

7. In the backdrop of the above observations made by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any palpable infirmity of reasoning or perversity in respect of the directions given by the learned Single Judge upon the concerned authorities to act in terms of the statutory provisions as contained under East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006 for the purpose of restoring the wetland to its former shape. If a writ Court directs an authority to act in accordance with any statutory provision, surely it cannot be construed as an order which requires any interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal where scope of interference is extremely limited. That apart and in any event, the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order clearly and squarely protect and preserve the rights of the parties in respect of the pending civil proceeding and also in respect of future litigation, if any.

8. For reasons stated above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

9. Both the appeals along with the respective applications for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed.

Arindam Mukherjee, J.: I agree.