21.11.2025 Item No.19 Ct. No. 1 KS W.P.A. (P) 348 of 2025 Sri Subhas Datta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Subhas Datta …..Petitioner appear (in person) Mr. Subhash Ch. Basu Mr. Pankaj Halder Mr. S. Maiti …..For the Petitioner Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. A.G. Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Sumita Shaw Mr. Soumen Chatterjee …..For the State PER, SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.: 1. Petitioner is present in person. 2. Heard on admission. 3. In the present PIL, the following reliefs are claimed:- “a) A Writ and/or in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents, their agents, men, subordinate/superior-in-office to take immediate steps in order to ensure hassle-free traffic movements so that the unbearable sufferings of the people can be minimized. b) To direct the Respondents authorities to refrain from putting-up permanent/semi-permanent barricades on the main roads of the city of Howrah by which the movements of the people are totally shattered. c) To direct the Respondents concerned to frame exhaustive guidelines/Standard Operational Practices (SOP) in the matter of holding the rallies / processions/ demonstrations within the city limit of Howrah. d) To direct the concerned Respondent authorities to designate specific spots/places near to the State Head 2 quarter where the agitators cane gathers and move further to their declared destinations like Nabanna. e) To direct the Respondents concerned to adopt the practice of recovering the costs of fixing the barricades/guardrails and removing them along with the cost of restoration of the road together with the police arrangement costs. f) Rule NISI in terms of prayers as stated hereinfore. g) Such further order or orders be made and/or direction or directions be given as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 4. Petitioner submits that he has received the SOP dated 13.08.2025. He will be happy if this SOP is implemented by the State Government strictly. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that SOP has already been filed. 6. We have heard the parties at length. 7. In the prayer clause, there is no prayer for issuing directions for implementation of the SOP. Since SOP dated 13.08.2025 has already been issued, we are not inclined to make any observation thereafter. So far other reliefs claimed by the petitioner are concerned, the same are related to hassle free traffic movements. The traffic movement is taken care by the police authorities. They are best suited to examine the ways and means to control the traffic. This Court cannot sit in appeal and suggest what should be the mode and method of controlling the traffic. However, in the interest of justice, we deem 3 it proper to permit the petitioner to submit a detailed representation containing his suggestion for control of traffic and submit it before the respondent no.5 alongwith copy of this order. This Court has no doubt that if suggestions are given, the respondent no.5 will dispassionately consider the same. 8. With the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits, PIL is disposed of. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.) (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)