Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44485 (CAL)

BAPPA SAMADDAR AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/25713/2024 · 2025-03-26

Amrita Sinha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

D/L 26 26.03.2025 Court No.14 PRADIP IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION WPA 25713 of 2024 Bappa Samaddar & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Senjuti Sengupta Mr. Rananeesh Guha Thakurta …for the Petitioners. Mr. Saurav Chaudhuri …for the State. 1. Affidavits of service filed in Court today are taken on record. 2. The petitioners claim that General Manager, District Industries Centre is taking steps for setting up and letting out stalls to others by depriving the claim of the petitioners to set up stall for the vegetable sellers. According to the petitioners, the subject place is earmarked for ‘Krishak Bazar’. Despite application being made by the petitioners, the same has been kept pending. 3. Learned advocate representing the State respondents has obtained instruction from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hooghly wherein it is mentioned that, District Magistrate, Hooghly identified the subject land and the government is in the process of transferring the land which is presently possessed by the Public Works Directorate, to the MSME and T Department for setting up Common Facilitation Centre 2 to support Guptipara Plastic & Artificial Flower Cluster (Industrial Cooperative). 4. The entity claimed by the petitioners by the name of ‘MSME Krishak Bazar’ does not exist at all. The land in question is not possessed by MSME and T Department till date. The allotment of stalls in favour of the MSME Krishak Bazar has been reported to be entirely fictitious. The allotment of stalls to vegetable vendors is completely different from the decision taken to set up the Plastic & Artificial Flower Cluster. 5. The petitioners have not been able to show any document in support of the submission that, the land in question was earmarked for the ‘Krishak Bazar’. 6. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all the requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)