IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty &

The Hon’ble Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra MAT 123 of 2025 +

IA No. CAN 1 of 2025 Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited Versus The Board of Trustees for the Syma Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata &Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. SardarAmjad Ali, Sr. Adv., Mr. Puranjan Pal.

For the Respondent nos. 1 & 4 : Mr. AbhrajitMitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Adv., Mr. Subhankar Nag, Mr. SwarajitDey, Mr. Debarati Das, Mr. SaptarshiKar.

Hearing is concluded on : 20^th March, 2025. Judgment On : 23^rd April, 2025.

Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.

1. This appeal carried by the writ petitioner/appellant takes exception to the order dated 21^st January, 2025 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition being WPA 2957 of 2024.

2. The said writ petition was preferred by appellant challenging inter alia an order dated 4th December, 2024 passed by the respondent no. 5 in a proceeding under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant Act, 1971)(hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act) directing eviction of the appellant, granting 15 days’ time to vacate the premises with a further direction upon the authorities of Syma Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Port) to submit a statement comprising details of its calculation of damages. By the order impugned in the present appeal the learned single Judge refused to exercise discretion in favour of appellant and dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the appellant to prefer a statutory appeal against the order passed by the respondent no.5. In the said order it was further observed that ‘the Appellate Authority, in the event such appeal is preferred within twelve days from this date, would be expected to admit the appeal by considering the question of delay leniently in view of the fact that the petitioner had approached the Court seeking relief and thereafter, decide the matter in accordance with law’. 3. In connection with the present appeal, the appellant preferred an application for injunction being CAN 1 of 2025 and upon arriving at a prima facie satisfaction that an arguable case has been made out by the appellant, an interim order was passed on 31st January, 2025 restraining the respondent no.1 from creating any third- party interest in the property and directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property till the end of the month of April, 2025. The respondent no.5 was also restrained from passing any final order as regards the claim for damages in proceeding no. 2087/D of 2024 till the end of April, 2025 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

4. Records would reveal that earlier the appellant preferred a writ petition being WPA 1475 of 2023 inter alia praying for registration of a lease for 30 years. During pendency of the said writ petition a tender being SMP/KDS/Mech/DC-III/ADV/650 dated 4th September, 2023 was issued and as such the appellant challenged the same through an application being CAN 1 of 2023. In the said writ petition and the application an order was passed on 25th September, 2003 observing, inter alia, that ‘since the learned advocate on behalf of the respondent, SPMP, Kolkata under takes that the tender process does not involve the land sites and 5 weigh bridges for which lease was granted to the petitioner, this Court relying on such undertaking does not think it necessary to pass any interim order at this stage’. The said writ petition is still pending. Alleging violation of the said order dated 25th September, 2003, a contempt application was preferred in which an order was passed on 23rd November, 2023 to the effect that ‘the parties shall maintain an order of status quo as on September 25, 2023 over and in respect of the land sites and the five numbers of weighbridges to the extent of the issues and subject-matter involved in the interlocutory application being C.A.N