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

The Hon’ble Justice PARTHA SARATHI SEN WPA 8508 of 2023 With CAN 2 of 2024 With CAN 3 of 2025 With CAN 4 of 2025 Apu Rice Mill Private Limited Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioner: Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Abirlal Chakravorti, Adv., Mr. Sayan Banerjee, Adv.

For the State: Mr. Chandi Charan De, AGP Mr. Anirban Sarkar, Adv., Ms. Chandana Ghosh, Adv.

Hearing concluded on: 25.07. 2025. Judgment on: 25.07.2025.

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : –

1. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities for consideration of the representation as submitted before them by the writ petitioner, for quashing and/or canceling the tender dated 06.01.2023 in respect of the plot of land particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of the instant writ petition, for recalling and/or quashing of the work order dated 31.01.2023 along with other ancillary reliefs.

2. At the time of hearing, Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page no. 47 of the instant writ petition being a copy of memo dated 25.11.2014 as issued by the respondent no. 5/authority in favour of the respondent no. 4/authority whereby and whereunder the proposal for long term lease as submitted by the writ petitioner/company in respect of the aforementioned land was forwarded to the respondent no. 4/authority.

3. In course of his submission Mr. Chatterjee further draws attention of this Court to page nos. 50A and 51 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the order dated 16.12.2025 as passed by the respondent no. 5/authority. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that on careful perusal of the proposal as given by the writ petitioner the said respondent no. 5/authority came to a finding that the said plot of land may be settled in favour of the writ petitioner on long term basis following the Rules 2 to 3 of W.B.L.R.

Manual, 1991 subject to payment of „salami‟ as well as annual rent.

4. It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that all on a sudden the respondents/authorities had taken a contrary decision for interdepartmental transfer of the said Government land in favour of Panchayat and Rural Development Department allegedly for solid waste management scheme without considering the said order dated 16.12.2015 as passed by the respondent no. 5/authority wherein recommendation has been made for allotment of the said land in favour of the writ petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that despite submission of several representations by and/or on behalf of the writ petitioner, the respondents/authorities failed and neglected to consider the genuine grievance of the writ petitioner and the said authorities being authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India had failed to act in a just and proper manner in refuting the genuine claim of the writ petitioner. It is thus submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that it is a fit case for allowing the instant writ petition in terms in terms of the prayers made therein.

5. Per contra, Mr. De, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State at the very outset raises the question of maintainability of the instant writ petition in view of the provisions of Section 6(b) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to the „said Act of 1997‟ in short) read with Section 2(r) of the self- same Act of 1997. It is submitted by Mr. De that since the writ petitioner has practically made a complaint regarding inaction and/or culpable negligence on the part of the respondent no. 5/authority even after passing of the order dated 16.12.2015, the instant writ petition is not maintainable before this Court.

6. In his next fold of submission, Mr. De draws attention of this Court to the report supporte