OD 1 ORDER SHEET WPO/360/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE PARMESHWARI ELECTRO STEEL (P) LTD. AND ANR. VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN Date: 11th September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avirup Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Abir Lal Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Rishov Das, Adv. …for the petitioners Mr. N.G. Khaitan, Adv. Mr. Samrat Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Rhitam Chatterjee, Adv. …for the respondent The Court: 1. The petitioners and the respondents are represented by their respective learned counsel. 2. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the notice dated 28/29.03.2017 as has been issued by the respondent no.3 authority addressed to the writ petitioner no.1 whereby and whereunder the said authority cancelled the allotment of the plot of land measuring about 5(Five) acres being Master Plot No. ‘G’ under Mouza-Kadasole, J.L. 2 No.22 in plasto Steel Park, Phase-I under P.S. Barjora in Bankura District. 3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits before this Court that before issuing the impugned notice of termination, the writ petitioners were served with a show-cause notice to which the writ petitioners had given a due reply. It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that without considering the reply to the said show-cause and without giving any chance of hearing, the impugned notice has been issued in violation of the principle of natural justice. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that it is a fit case for granting the relief as prayed for. 4. Mr. Khaitan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities vehemently opposes the prayer. It is submitted that there is sufficient justification on the part of the respondent authorities to issue the impugned notice dated 28/29.03.2017 inasmuch as the respondent authorities noticed violation of the clauses of the Deed of Lease as has been executed in favour of the writ petitioners in respect of the aforementioned plot of land. 5. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this Court is of the considered view to the respondent authorities more specifically the respondent no.3 authority ought to have given a chance of hearing to the writ petitioners before issuing the impugned notice dated 28/29.03.2017. In view of the such, this Court while disposing of 3 the instant writ petition, quashes the impugned notice dated 28/29.03.2017 as issued by the respondent no.3 authority. 6. Liberty is given to the writ petitioners to approach the respondent no.3 authority with a prayer for fixing a date of hearing in connection with the show-cause notice dated 11.01.2017 as issued by the respondent authorities and the reply to show-cause dated 16.02.2017 as given by the writ petitioners positively within seven working days from today by submitting a written representation. 7. On receipt of such representation along with a server copy of this order, the respondent no.3 authority shall fix a date of hearing also within seven working days from the date of receipt of the said comprehensive representation from the writ petitioners. 8. The respondent no.3 authority is further directed to give a fair chance of hearing to the writ petitioners and/or their authorized representative and thereafter shall pass a reasoned order on the basis of the representation as would be submitted by the writ petitioners, the show- cause notice dated 11.01.2017 and the reply to the show-cause dated 16.02.2017 and shall forthwith communicate the same to the writ petitioners preferably by e-mail if the e-mail details of the writ petitioners provided to him at the time of hearing. The entire exercise as indicated hereinabove shall have to be completed by the respondent no.3 authority within 45 working days from the date of receipt of the comprehensive representation along with a server copy of today’s order by the writ petitioners. 4 9. The time limits as fixed in the foregoing paragraphs are peremptory and mandatory. 10. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition being WPO/360/2024 is disposed of. 11. It is, however, made clear that while disposing the instant writ petition, this Court has not gone into the merits of the show-cause notice dated 11.01.2017 and the reply dated 16.02.2017 and thus, all points are kept open for adjudication by the respondent no.3 authority. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.) B.Pal