IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen WPA 16213 of 2025 Swapan Kumar Pati & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioners : Mr. K. C. Das Mr. Sk. Sahjahan For the State : Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Sr. Govt. Adv.

Mr. Manish Biswas Heard on : 04.08.2025 Judgement on : 04.08.2025 PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:

1. The affidavit-of-service and the supplementary affidavit as filed in Court today on behalf of the writ petitioners are taken on record.

2. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities commanding them not to demolish the boundary wall of the property of the writ petitioners, particulars of which have been mentioned in paragraph no. 2 of the instant writ petition with a further prayer for taking appropriate steps for adequately compensating the writ petitioners for utilizing the land of the writ petitioners by initiating the process of acquisition.

3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Galib, learned senior government advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State and its instrumentalities raises the point of maintainability of the instant writ petition. Drawing attention to Page Nos. 71 to 75 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the representation dated 07.07.2025 it is submitted on behalf of the State that even if, for the sake of argument it is accepted that such representation was submitted on the same very day, however, from the affidavit portion of the instant writ petition, it would reveal that that the instant writ petition was affirmed on 16.07.2025 and the same was filed on the same day.

4. Placing his reliance upon the reported decision of Jyotsna Makal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in

2017 SCC Online Cal 18746 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No. 28091 (W) of 2017, it is submitted by Mr. Galib that in a like situation, a said co- ordinate Bench of this Court declined to entertain the said writ petition by holding that the principles of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies in case of a writ petition since there is a statutory provision allowing a government officer for a period of two months to take a decision from the date of receipt of a notice of demand of justice.

5. It is thus submitted by Mr. Galib that in view of such proposition of law, there cannot be any difficulty in holding that the instant writ petition is not maintainable since the same is prematured.

6. At this juncture, Mr. Galib, learned senior government advocate again draws attention of this Court to paragraph no. 13 of the instant writ petition. It is submitted by Mr. Galib that from the averments made in the instant writ petition, it would reveal that the writ petitioners approached this Court merely on the basis of their mere apprehension which does not ipso facto give rise to a cause of action to the writ petitioners for approaching this Court seeking interference in the alleged action of the respondents/authorities in writ jurisdiction. In support of his contention, Mr. Galib draws attention of this Court to the reported decision of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Abdul Sattar & Ors. reported in 1984 SCC Online Cal 91 :

(1984) 1 CHN 422

7. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits before this Court that in the event, it is found that the apprehension of the writ petitioners is genuine, a writ court ought not to decline the relief as prayed for applying the principles of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure as wrongly argued on behalf of the respondent/State.

8. It is further submitted by Mr. Das that the apprehension of the writ petitioners is not at all flimsy inasmuch as sufficient materials have been placed before this Court by way of supplementary affidavit that even during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the respondents/authorities have demolished