IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION)

APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee WPA 6280 of 2012 Narayan Chandra Saha & Ors.

-Vs.-

State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Milan Chandra Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sulagna Bhattacharjee.

For the State : Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Mr. Sayan Datta.

Heard on : 20.03.2025 Judgment on : 08.04.2025 Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.:-

1. A group of modest traders, displaced from a prior market and subsequently rehabilitated within the precincts of B.C. Roy Market, have now sought intervention of this Court through the present writ petition, with an earnest appeal for an order restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession of the premises and/or places from which they are currently running their respective businesses, and further, seeking a directive to the respondents for the grant of a permanent lease of said premises and/or places in their favour.

2. Prior to venturing to delve into the contentious issue involved in the writ petition, it would be apt to allude the key facts, as projected in the writ petition, which are as follows:

a) The case has a chequered history. In 1975, the State Government launched a program known as the 'Clean Calcutta Campaign.' Pursuant to the objectives of this initiative, the petitioners, along with other hawkers, were evicted from Hemanta Basu Market and several adjacent markets situated in the heart of the city. This action sparked widespread commotion and protests from the hawkers, small traders, and a section of the general public, which ultimately compelled the Government to take steps for their rehabilitation.

b) To effectively address the grievances and inconveniences faced by the displaced hawkers (the petitioners herein), a Hawker’s Association and a Co-ordination Committee of that Association were formed. Subsequently, the Co-ordination Committee received an affiliation from the TUCC.

c) After thorough scrutiny, a list of 70 hawkers was compiled and submitted to the State Government. Both the State Government and the Ministry of Defense, Government of India, sympathetically considered the grievances of the hawkers displaced from their previous places of business and extended their cooperation.

d) Seeking an effective resolution to the issue, a writ petition, vide. no.

139 of 1975 was moved before this Court, in which the Court called for an affidavit-in-opposition from the respondents. In response, the State Government filed an affidavit, which, inter alia, stated that as an initial measure, 47 stalls were constructed within the precincts of Dr. B.C. Roy Market to accommodate a portion of the hawkers displaced by the campaign. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 15^th June, 1975. However, an intra-court appeal, Appeal No. 228 of 1975, was filed challenging the order dated 15^th June, 1975. This appeal was subsequently dismissed on 1^st August, 1975.

e) Meanwhile, the then Minister-in-charge constituted a committee comprising various political leaders to address the issue. However, a list was compiled that included several individuals who were not displaced hawkers like the petitioners and this list was submitted to the Government. Based on this list, the Government began allotting stalls to these individuals as well.

f) This action led to the filing of several writ petitions in this Court.

One such writ petition resulted in the issuance of a Rule, which was registered as C.R. 1897 (W) of 1997. Another writ petition, C.O. No. 23139 (W) of 1977, was also filed on this issue. Additionally, 14 allottees filed a separate writ petition, C.R. No. 2067 (W) of 1977. In yet another writ petition, C.R. 1997 (W) of 1977, 22 persons were added as parties. However, all of these writ petitions, except C.R.

1897 (W) of 1997, were dismissed for being prematurely presented.

g) The Rule, C.R. 1897 (W) of 1997, was disposed of by an order dated

24^th June, 1997. By that order, the State