Dd 10 04.09.2025 MAT/1454/2025 SABYASACHI MULLICK CHOWDHURY VS NATIONAL WETLAND AUTHORITY AND ORS. IA NO: CAN/1/2025 Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Mr. Vishwarup Acharyya, Advocate … … For the Appellant Mr. Ankit Sureka, Mr. Asis Datta, Advocate … …For the respondent No. 9 Mr. N. C. Behani, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Mukherjee, Advocates .. …For the respondent no. 5, WBPCB Ms. Soumi Guha Thakurta, Advocate .. ..For the respondent No. 3 (Central Pollution Control Board) Mr. Amal Sen, ld. Addl. Adv. Gen Mr. Benazir Ahmed, Mr. Partha Sarathi Pal, Advocates .. ..For the State 1. Appeal is directed against an order dated August 8, 2025 passed in WPA 21710 of 2022 with CAN 6 of 22025. 2. Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioner. 3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, appellant is a lessee of a waterbody. In respect of such waterbody there are proceedings pending before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). National Green Tribunal formulated a Eight Member Committee to look into the allegation of illegal conversion of the waterbody. He submits that a 2 portion of the waterbody is filled up and dealt with inappropriately. There are structures which Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) sanctioned in respect of an area which was illegally filled up out of the concerned waterbody. 4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the learned Single Judge erred in granting interim order. He submits that, the direction of the Eight-Member Committee of the NGT is that, the illegally filled up area should be reclaimed and that the waterbody should be restored in its original form. He submits that KMC authorities cannot be trusted to undertake such work since KMC authorities granted sanction in respect of structure to be made on the illegally reclaimed portion of the waterbody. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 9 submits that, there is an application pending before the NGT taking exception to the report of the Eight-Member Committee. 6. State is represented. 7. The writ petition is still pending. In the pending writ petition, an application was filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner seeking various directions on KMC. 8. KMC is not a party respondent in the writ petition. 9. Appellant did not apply for adding KMC as a party respondent in such writ petition. 10. Learned Single Judge is yet to decide the application finally. Learned Single Judge directed affidavits to be filed. 11. We do not find that exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge is erroneous or perverse so as to require an intervention at this stage. 3 12. MAT/1454/2025 along with the connected application are dismissed without any order as to costs. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)