D/L 6 10.07.2026 Sudipta ct.no.2 W.P.A. 9892 of 2026 Dipali Mahato Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Firdous Samim Ms. Gopa Biswas Mr. Hasanuz Zamem Molla Ms. Ankita Ghosh Ms. Salini Bhattacharya …for the petitioner. Ms. Sabita Roy, Jr. Govt. Pleader Mr. Ranajit Talukdar Mr. Parthasarathi Boyal …for the State. 1. Present petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus for challenging the email communication dated 21st January, 2026 issued by the ARTO-in- Charge, Manbazar. 2. The petitioner has also prayed for withdrawal all the challan issued under Sections 113 / 66 / 184 / 3 and 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of the commercial vehicle bearing no. WB811914. The petitioner has also prayed for immediate release of the vehicle no. WB811914. It has further been submitted that the respondents may be directed to produce all the documents as well as refund of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 submits that the authorities have illegally and unlawfully detained the commercial vehicle no. WB811914. It has been submitted that an application was moved before the learned CJM for release of the vehicle. Learned CJM, Purulia asked for a report from the Officer-in-Charge, Kenda Police Station in respect of the seize. S.I. Bapan Mondal, Officer-in-Charge, Kenda P.S. filed a detailed report dated 8th January, 2026. Learned counsel submits that the perusal of this report indicates that the petitioner had duly deposited Rs.50,000/- as penalty for unauthorized carrying sand by the detained vehicle. It has further been submitted that the vehicle has been detained as the report from the ARTO, Manbazar had not been received. Learned counsel submits that there is no authority with the ARTO, Manbazar to direct the police to continue to detain the vehicle. Learned counsel submits that all the actions of the opposite parties are illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the appropriate directions may be issued. 3. Learned counsel for the State has filed a report of Adawita Biswas, Motor Vehicles Inspector (N.T), M.V. Section (Purulia), dated 3 5th June, 2026 whereby it has been submitted that the vehicle no. WB811914 was intercepted by the Kenda P.S. for carrying sand illegally and a fine of Rs.50,000/- was imposed. The report further states that ARTO, Manbazar, sent an email instructing them not to release the vehicle until the compounding / challan amount was fully deposited. Report further states that on enquiry it was informed that the vehicle was carrying excess load of 9740 kgs. The report also mentions as per the Motor Vehicles Act the total fine is around Rs.80,000/-. It has further been submitted that the application moved before the learned CJM was dismissed. Learned Jr. Govt. Pleader has also disclosed that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition being WPA 5445 of 2026 for release of the vehicle. However, the same was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the filing of this petition was not disclosed as it was not required. Learned counsel submits that the Co-ordinate Bench had granted the liberty to the petitioner to take the appropriate steps in law for 4 quashing the email of the ARTO, Manbazar, dated 21st January, 2026. 5. Though the scope of jurisdiction while exercising writ jurisdiction is large and has to be exercised to ensure that necessary orders are issued the issuing the writ for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part 3 of the Constitution of India. An aggrieved person can approach the High Court for the enforcement of its fundamental rights and the Court in an appropriate case may issue the writ of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo- Warranto. Learned counsel submits that in the present case the writ of mandamus should be issued as the authorities had no right to detain the vehicle. It is a settled proposition that the mandamus can be issued directing for enforcement of the fundamental right being conferred by the Constitution of India. 6. The writ is an important jurisdiction and the Court has to be very sensitive about it. The Court can even enlarge its scope, if it is found that there is apparent illegality being committed by the authorities. It is also a settled proposition that in the writ 5 jurisdiction, the petitioner who approaches the Court has to come with the clean hands and must disclose all the relevant facts. In the present case, a commercial vehicle no. WB811914 was allegedly illegally detained and challan was issued for the various offences under Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that he has no instruction regarding the final disposal of challan. However, he submits that upon perusal of email dated 21st January, 2026, it can be inferred that as per the authority only the fine amount has not been realized. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has duly placed on record the receipt vide which Rs.50,000/- has been deposited on 26th November, 2025. 8. It is a matter of record that the petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle before the learned CJM. However, the same was dismissed by the learned CJM vide order dated 2nd February, 2026. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged this order of the learned CJM. The correctness of such an order is matter of appropriate judicial scrutiny. However, the petitioner for reasons 6 best known to him instead of challenging the order dated 2nd February, 2026 has filed this writ. It is a matter of record that the petitioner for reasons best known did not disclose the filing of earlier writ petition being WPA 5445 of 2026. Plea of the petitioner is that since liberty was given, non-disclosure cannot be considered as fatal. The Court does not agree with this. The petitioner is duty bound to disclose the earlier relevant litigation and it is for the Court that what is the effect of the same in the present case. 9. The Court is conscious of the fact that the commercial vehicle should not be detained for a long time as it hampers the right and interest of the owner of the vehicle. But at the same time, the Court is fully conscious of the operation of the sand mafia and danger to the public at large by the commercial vehicles carrying overweight. In such like cases the authorities are required to act with a heavy hand and must ensure that appropriate action is taken, but at the same time it should also be ensured that there should not be undue delay in taking a decision as to the release of the vehicle. 7 10. This Court is of the considered opinion that since the present vehicle is subject matter of challan being issued by the motor vehicle authority, the petitioner shall have all the liberty to challenge the correctness of the order of the learned CJM vide which the release of the vehicle was denied. Before parting this, this Court also emphasize that ARTO, Manbazar shall conclude the relevant proceedings maximum within a period of one week after the communication of this order, so that appropriate legal proceedings can take place. The petitioner shall be informed within one week of taking of such proceedings. 11. With the above observations, the present petition is disposed of. 12. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)