ASR 5. Ct. no. 24. 4.07.2025 WPA 23431 of 2006 With CAN 3 of 2025 Pradeep Kumar Saraogi & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Shoham Sanyal Mr. Sayantan Chatterjee Mr. Dwip Raj Basu Mr. Avijit Kar ……..For the Petitioners Mr. Sk. Md. Galib Mr. Manish Biswas Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay …..For the State Re: CAN 3 of 2025 This is an application for amendment of writ petition being W.P. no. 23431 (W) of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant writ petition was dismissed for default. An application for restoration being CAN 1 of 2025 was filed; during the course of hearing of the said application before a Co-ordinate bench, the State authority has informed about such subsequent event in their affidavit-in-opposition. 2 The learned Co-ordinate bench has restored the instant writ petition by allowing the application being CAN 3 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the subsequent events are required to place on pleadings for proper determination of the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this application to bring on record subsequent events including adding the requiring body as added respondent in this matter. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and shall not change nature and character of the instant writ petition. So, he prayed for necessary order. Mr. Chandi Charan De, learned Additional Government pleader appearing on behalf of the State respondent submits that the nature and character of the entire writ petition would be changed if the proposed amendment at all allowed. He further submits that the prayer made in the writ petition has automatically gone into another angle, thus the instant application for amendment cannot be allowed. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State respondent it appears that some subsequent facts the petitioner intends to incorporate 3 in pleadings by way of adding some pleadings in paragraphs 33A to 33S. Petitioner further intents to add requiring body as a party respondent no. 3; in tune thereof some grounds were also added and some prayers. It appears that the petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuing mandamus upon the respondent authority to quash notice under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 31.01.2006. The events which petitioner intends to incorporate are the subsequent events after issuance of such impugned notice, thus for proper determination of this matter the subsequent events are required to bring on record. In my view, the proposed amendment is formal in nature and shall not change the nature and character of the instant writ petition. Thus, the application for amendment being CAN 3 of 2025 is considered and allowed. Petitioner is directed to amend the writ petition by filing an amended copy of writ petition after affirming the same within three weeks from date. The petitioner must serve a copy of the amended writ petition upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 4 The petitioner is required to serve the copy of amended writ petition upon the added respondent no. 3 and filed an affidavit of service in the returnable date. Let the matter appear in the list in the 2nd week of August, 2025 under the heading ‘To Be Mentioned’ [Subhendu Samanta, J]