JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. 

1. In this intra-Court appeal the judgment and order dated 20.06.2024 as passed by the learned Single Bench in WPA 15989 of 2024 is assailed. By the impugned order learned Single Bench allowed the prayer of the writ petitioner for grant of police help for removal of the unauthorized occupants from the land of the writ petitioner being the Estate Manager (in charge) of Board of Major Port Authority for the Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata.

2. It is pertinent to mention herein that the appellants before this Court were not parties to the said writ petition and thus, a coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 28.06.2024 as passed in this appeal permitted the present appellants to challenge the order impugned by filing this intra-Court appeal.

3. At the time of hearing Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants at the very outset draws attention of this court to the cause title of the writ petition being WPA 15989 of 2024. It is submitted that though the present appellants are the real aggrieved persons in view of the passing of the impugned order however, the present appellants were not made party respondents in the said writ petition and thus, the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 was practically passed in absence of the present appellants.

4. In course of his argument Mr. Basu also draws our attention to the averments made in the said writ petition before the learned Single Bench. It is submitted that from the averments made in the said writ petition, more specifically in paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6 and 12 it would reveal that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner/ respondent-Port herein that the property of the writ petitioner Port was unauthorizedly occupied by some local persons who are the appellants before this Court. It is further submitted that in view of such admitted position leaned Single Bench ought not to have passed the impugned order in view of the fact that for eviction of an unauthorized occupant from ‘Public Presmises’ enabling provision is available in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’ in short).

5. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that the learned Single Bench while passing the impugned order has miserably failed to visualize that the writ petitioner/ respondent-Port has an alternative remedy for eviction of the unauthorized occupants and thus, the learned Single Bench ought to have come to a finding that the writ petition as filed before it is not maintainable on account of availability of alternative remedy. Drawing attention to the annexures of the stay application being I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 as filed in connection with the instant appeal it is further submitted by Mr. Basu that from page nos. 144 to 179 of the paper-book it would reveal that the appellants have filed sufficient materials to substantiate that they are in settled possession of the property from where they have been unlawfully evicted with the aid and assistance of the police authorities pursuant to the order of the learned Single Bench. It is further submitted by Mr. Basu that since the present appellants were not given any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the order of eviction, a serious miscarriage of justice occurred and therefore, it is a fit case for allowing the instant appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.

6. It is further submitted by Mr. Basu that the writ petitioner/ respondent-Port filed the aforementioned writ petition suppressing material fact that the present appellants are in settled possession of the said public premises and thus, the impugned order has been obtained by the writ petitioner Port by fraud with a view to deprive the present appellants from their lawful right to occupy the said public premises. It is further submitted by Mr. Basu that as per the law of the land even a trespasser cannot be evicted forcibly and thus a person even in illegal occupation has t