2026 Supreme(Cal) 15

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
OM NARAYAN RAI, J.
The Asia Health Care Development Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
WPA No. 17068 of 2025
Decided On : 18-05-2026

A show-cause notice in quasi-judicial proceedings is subject to judicial review if it exhibits pre-determination or external dictation. Furthermore, the existence of parallel arbitral proceedings regarding contractual disputes does not inherently bar statutory authorities from exercising powers under special land eviction legislation.

Headnote:(A) West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 - Sections 2, 3 and 4 - Writ jurisdiction - Challenge to show-cause notice - Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is permissible where a notice suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction, reflects non-application of mind, or is issued with a pre-determined or premeditated approach - Justice must not only be done but must manifestly appear to be done - A show-cause notice issued under the influence of, or at the dictate of, a superior administrative authority, rather than through independent application of mind by the quasi-judicial officer, is liable to be set aside to ensure fair procedure. (Paras 8, 18, 23)

(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 8, 9, 11 and 36 - Arbitrability of disputes - Pendency of arbitral proceedings does not per se oust the jurisdiction of statutory authorities to initiate or continue eviction proceedings in respect of public land once the underlying lease has expired by efflux of time or has been validly terminated - The two statutory mechanisms serve distinct purposes; an arbitration clause cannot be used to foreclose the operation of a special statute intended for the expeditious recovery of public land. (Paras 32, 34, 35)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner occupied property under a lease from a local authority. Following the termination of the lease and subsequent disputes, several legal proceedings were initiated across different forums. A show-cause notice for eviction was issued to the petitioner under a special statute governing unauthorized occupancy of public land. The petitioner challenged this notice, alleging that it was drafted with a pre-judged mind due to external influence from a higher administrative office and that the proceedings were barred by the ongoing arbitration regarding the property rights.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the show-cause notice explicitly reflected a pre-determined opinion, contrary to the neutral intent of the statutory form. Furthermore, the court found evidence that the adjudicating authority acted under the instructions of a superior official, thereby violating the requirement of impartiality in quasi-judicial functions. The court held that while the show-cause notice was vulnerable due to the influenced mindset, it did not find evidence of personal bias. The arbitration proceedings did not preclude the statutory authority from exercising its power to initiate eviction upon the expiry of the lease agreement.

Issues: The primary issues were whether a show-cause notice can be challenged in writ jurisdiction for premeditation and whether the initiation of eviction proceedings under a special statute is barred by the existence of a prior arbitration agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: A show-cause notice in a quasi-judicial proceeding is vulnerable to challenge if it demonstrates a lack of open-mindedness or results from external dictation, as this violates the principles of natural justice. However, an arbitral reference relating to contractual disputes does not displace the statutory duty of authorities to recover public land in the interest of the public when the lease stands determined by expiry or termination.

Result: The impugned show-cause notice is set aside, with liberty granted to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law and fair procedure.