IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/179/2025 M/s Prime Udyog Private Limited Vs. The Tehsildar Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv. Mr. Adarsh Ilango ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das … for the respondent April 08, 2025 [SR] Item No.3 The present writ petition has been preferred alleging inaction on the part of the respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s application for mutation. Ms. Anjili Nag, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Adarsh Ilango, learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the land, as detailed in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, upon participating in an e- auction conducted by the State Bank of India, Assets Management Branch II, Kolkata. Subsequent thereto, the sale certificate dated 12th March, 2018 was issued in favour of the petitioner. Upon purchasing the said land, the petitioner approached the sole respondent with a prayer for mutation. Pursuant thereto, the sole respondent issued a notice in Form – J to the interested persons including the petitioner on 20th June, 2018. However, subsequent thereto, no steps were taken towards the disposal of the petitioner’s application for mutation. Ms. Das, learned advocate for the State submits, upon instruction, that on the basis of the petitioner’s prayer for mutation, a Revenue Case being RC/893/2018 was initiated and repeated notices were served upon the interested persons asking them to appear. However, in spite of repeated notices, no one entered appearance and as a consequence thereof, the mutation application could not be disposed of finally. No explanation is also forthcoming as to why the petitioner did not approach the respondent after issuance of the notice dated 20th June, 2018. In reply, Ms. Nag, submits that in response to the notice dated 20th June, 2018 issued by the respondent, though the representative of the petitioner visited the office of the respondent on the date specified and also on several occasions thereafter, the proceeding was kept pending. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will serve keeping the writ petition pending and the issue needs to be relegated to the respondent for consideration. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to dispose of the pending Revenue Case being RC No. RC/893/2018, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties including the representative of the writ petitioner and to communicate the final decision to the petitioner. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As the writ petition has been disposed of, without calling for any affidavit, the allegations leveled against the respondents shall be deemed to have been denied. ( Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. )