JUDGMENT :

Om Narayan Rai, J.

1. This writ petition seeks inter alia restoration of possession of the petitioner as well as annulment/setting aside of an order dated April 10, 2025 passed by the Estate Officer, Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata (hereinafter 'the said Port').

2. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner has been in occupation of a space measuring about 453.482 Sq. Mtr. situated at 103/20, Foreshore Road, Shibpur, Howrah, West Bengal – 711102 belonging to the said Port (hereafter “subject property”).

3. The petitioner claims to have been put into possession of the subject property in the year 1991 by one Mr. Ramaoudh Pandey who, according to the petitioner, was the “erstwhile tenant recognized by the Port Authorities”.

4. It is also alleged that upon taking possession, the petitioner made efforts to pay rent which was not accepted and that the Respondent Port Authorities are well aware of the petitioner's possession. The petitioner has annexed copies of petitions filed before the learned Executive Magistrate in the year 2009 as well as 2011 to demonstrate the fact that his possession was known to the Port authorities.

5. The petitioner claims to have been in continuous occupation of the subject property and alleges that on August 29, 2025 the petitioner was dispossessed from the premises and a padlock was put therein.

6. The petitioner has also alleged that during one of the recent visits to the property the petitioner found that a portion of the wall of the said unit was broken and materials have been stolen therefrom and that the petitioner has lodged a complaint with the police authorities as regards the same.

7. The petitioner has also asserted that he made a detailed representation on November 11, 2025 to the Port Authorities and requested them to allow the petitioner to carry on with the petitioner's business, however, since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

8. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been dispossessed from the said property without putting the petitioner on notice about any proceeding that may have been initiated in respect of the subject property.

9. He submits that the petitioner could not have been evicted on the basis of an order dated April 10, 2025 passed by the Estate Officer against one M/s. V. Madhukar & Co. It is further submitted that even if it is assumed that the petitioner has been in unauthorized occupation of the subject property, then also the respondent authorities could not have evicted the petitioner without initiating appropriate proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereafter 'the said Act of 1971'), against the petitioner upon issuance of appropriate notice to the petitioner in terms of the said Act of 1971.

10. He invites the attention of the Court to the petition filed before the learned Executive Magistrate (2nd Court) at Howrah being Misc. Petition No. 69 of 2011 and submits that on a perusal thereof it will be clear that the respondent Port Authorities were aware of the fact that the petitioner was and had been in occupation of the subject property. It is submitted that since the petitioner's occupation was in the knowledge of the Port Authorities, they could not have proceeded to evict the petitioner without conducting eviction proceedings against the petitioner in terms of the said Act of 1971.

11. Mr. Roy has cited two orders, dated August 18, 2011 and September 24, 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in F.A. 24 of 2004 in a bid to demonstrate that the Port Authorities‟ attempt to evict a third party on the basis of an order passed against M/s. V. Madhukar & Co., had been interdicted by this Court.

12. Mr. Roy has further taken this Court through several letters ranging from 19^th February, 1992 till February 01, 2002 to indicate that the petitioner has all along t