03.04.2025 ADSL-1 Ct. no.39 ss IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. 30384 of 2024 Biswajit Pramanik -Vs-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya Mr. Rajdeep Sinha ... for the petitioner Mr. Ansar Mandal, Ld. AGP Mr. Tanweer Jamil Mandal … for the State Mr. Dilip Kr. Sinha … for the respondent nos.7 & 8 This matter is listed in the supplementary list upon urgent mentioning by the learned advocate for the petitioner.

The writ petition has been filed for cancelling and/or withdrawal of order dated 4^th July, 2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haldia, respondent no.3.

The petitioner contends that despite there being permission granted by the Pradhan, Chaitanyapur Gram Panchayat, respondent no.6 for construction of a concrete boundary wall, orders have been issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haldia dated 4^th July, 2024 for demolition of the boundary wall of the petitioner’s property. Hence, this writ petition.

Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted permission by the Pradhan, Chaitanyapur Gram Panchayat to make construction of the concrete boundary wall on 27^th March, 2018. Despite there being permission, the impugned order has been issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haldia on 4th July, 2024. He also submits that the entire dispute is civil in nature. He further submits that as per Rule 19(3) of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2004’), no permission is required for making concrete boundary wall surrounding a place used for commercial purpose. He indicates that already notice of demolition has been issued by the Pradhan, Chaitanyapur Gram Panchayat on 25^th March, 2025. He seeks that the impugned order be set aside in the interest of justice.

On the contrary, Mr. Dilip Kr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent nos. 7 & 8 submits that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner failed to produce any scrap of paper to primarily suffice of making any application for obtaining such permission. Therefore, the permission for construction of concrete boundary wall, as shown by the petitioner, is illegal and has got no basis. He also indicates that pursuant to order passed in the writ petition being W.P.A. 27503 of 2023, the impugned order has been passed and contempt application being CPAN 25 of 2025 has also been filed for implementation of the order. Moreover, it is settled proposition of law that pendency of civil suit will not debar the Panchayat Pradhan or the local bodies to take steps against unauthorized construction. To buttress his contention, he relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Pradip Roy versus State of West Bengal & Ors. (M.A.T. 136 of 2025). He seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

Mr. Tanweer Jamil Mandal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State also submits that the earlier permission for concrete boundary wall obtained by the petitioner as contended is without any basis. The petitioner could not produce a single scrap of paper to show that he made application before the authority for obtaining the same. The report filed by the State also would indicate that there was no permission obtained by the petitioner from the concerned Gram Panchayat for construction of concrete boundary wall. He also seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

The only issue which falls for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 4^th July, 2024 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haldia is legally tenable or not.

At the outset, upon going through the impugned order dated 4^th July, 2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haldia, it is found that the same has been passed in terms of the order pas