14.07.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 10 Sandip IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE M.A.T. 1461 of 2025 I.A. No : CAN 3 of 2026 Shyamol Tripaty & Ors. -Versus- Sri Anup Bakshi & Ors. Mr. Golam Mastafa, Mr. Samirul Sardar …..for the appellants. Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, AGP, Mr. Niladri Saha ….for the State. 1) Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the appellants is taken on record. Apart from the state respondent, none appears for the other respondents, despite service. Re : CAN 3 of 2026 2) CAN 3 of 2026 is an application for restoration of M.A.T. 1461 of 2025, which was dismissed for default on May 18, 2026. 3) Considering the averments in Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the said application, we are satisfied with the explanation as to why the appellants could not be present before the Court when the matter was called on and dismissed for default. Accordingly, CAN 3 of 2026 is allowed. 4) M.A.T. 1461 of 2025 and the connected applications are restored to its original file and number. Re : CAN 1 of 2025 5) CAN 1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 180 days in preferring the appeal. 6) Upon perusal of the averments made in paragraphs 1 and 2, we are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. 7) The delay is condoned. 8) The appeal is registered. 9) Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed. Re : MAT 1461 of 2025 10) The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated January 17, 2024 passed in W.P.A. 131 of 2025. 11) We find that the learned single Judge directed the Block Development Officer, Daspur –II Block to consider and dispose of the representation of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 dated December 12, 2024. 12) From the writ petition, it appears that the representation dated December 12, 2024 was an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act addressed to the Pradhan of No. 5 Chaipat Gram Panchayat. It was filed by the advocate of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 13) An order was passed, directing the Block Development Officer to dispose of the said application. 14) We find the order of His Lordship to be innocuous. The Pradhan (SPIO) did not dispose of the application under the Right to Information Act. The Block Development Officer was directed to dispose of the said application. Thus, no interference is called for in this appeal. However, Mr. Mastafa submits that pursuant to the disposal of the writ petition, the concerned Block Development Officer has held that the appellants’ construction is unauthorized and directed demolition thereof. It is also submitted that the Panchayat 2 Authority has acted on the basis of such direction. 15) We are of the view that subsequent actions taken by the Block Development Officer and panchayat authorities, which are alleged before us, cannot be interfered with in the appeal. The cause of action is subsequent. The appellants are at liberty to take steps in accordance with law, by challenging the decision of the Block Development Officer and/or panchayat authorities. 16) Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of with the above observations. We have not considered the issue on merits and leave it open for adjudication by the proper forum. 17) Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) 3