14.07.2026 Item No.07 Court No.01 KCP MAT 1021 of 2026 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2026 Maa Muktakeshi Potato Freezing Private Ltd & Anr. - Versus - State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neil Basu Ms. Oindrilla Sarkar Mr. Avidipta Paul …. For the appellants Mr. D. N. Ray, Ld. G.P. Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar Mr. Guddu Singh Ms. Manisha Paswan …. For the State respondents Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Mr. Abhishek Banerjee Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury Ms. Trisa Chanda …. For the respondent no.8 The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 19th June, 2026 passed in a writ petition being WPA 12570 of 2025. Records would reveal that initially the appellants preferred a writ petition being WPA 26589 of 2022 in which an order was passed on 20th December, 2022 observing that the land in question has already been demarcated by the competent authority and directing the respondent authorities to ensure that no breach of peace takes place if the appellants try to construct 2 boundary wall at the demarcated line and that if required sufficient police protection will be provided by the Officer-in-Charge, Joypur Police Station. Challenging the said order an appeal was preferred by the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the said bank) which was dismissed by an order dated 19th April, 2023 observing inter alia that BL & LRO passed an order dated 29th August, 2022 which has neither been stayed nor varied and that as such, the order for construction of the boundary wall at the demarcated line cannot be interfered with. In the midst thereof, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being WPA 19960 of 2022 in which an order was passed on 26th March, 2025 observing inter alia that the demarcation has already been concluded and that as such, the demarcated property for which claim has been presented by the bank and the schedule referred to in respect of the borrower as mentioned in Misc. Case no.1 2016 be given effect to by the police authorities in accordance with law. Subsequent thereto, the boundary wall was allegedly demolished on 25th May, 2025. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed a writ petition being WPA 12570 of 2025 in which an order was passed on 17th June, 2025 directing that the police authorities of Joypur Police Station, Bankura shall provide adequate police 3 protection to the appellants and ‘to see that no further demolition of boundary wall takes place at the instance of respondents’. The said writ petition is still pending and in the same, the appellants preferred an application being CAN 3 of 2026 seeking permission to repair the broken portion of the boundary wall and to allow the appellants to run their business from the said demarcated property. The said application was dismissed by an order dated 19th June, 2026 which has been impugned in the present appeal. Mr. Saha Roy, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench has already affirmed the order of the BL & LRO dated 29th August, 2022 and as such, the appellants cannot be restrained from repairing the boundary wall and from running their business from the demarcated portion. He argues that in view of the order passed by the BL & LRO, no further report is required to be called for from the police authorities and no fresh demarcation is required. He contends that the safety and security of the appellants are at stake. Taking advantage of the broken portion, outsiders and persons instructed by the bank are entering into the appellants’ demarcated portion. The appellants’ ingress and egress to the 4 demarcated portion has also been interfered with. The said issues, as urged, were glossed over by the learned single Judge and no finding was returned. Such infirmity warrants interference in appeal. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the bank, however, denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Saha Roy and submits that it would be explicit from the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench itself that the challenge against the order of the BL & LRO has been kept open to be canvassed in the writ petition. He further submits that the grant of the interim order, as prayed for, would in fact tantamount to grant of the final relief at the interim stage. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. In prayer ‘c’ of the writ petition, the appellants have sought for necessary permission to reconstruct/repair the boundary wall and such prayer has been reiterated in the application being CAN. A perusal of the order impugned would reveal that the prayer for repairing the broken portion of the boundary wall was refused as there is already an order dated 17th June, 2025 directing the police authorities ‘to see that no further demolition of boundary wall takes place at the 5 instance of respondents’. The prayer for repairs, in our opinion, was rightly discounted at the interim stage since the lis as regards legality of the construction of the boundary wall is yet to be finally decided in the pending writ petition and moreso when, in the order dated 19th April, 2023, the Hon’ble Court observed inter alia that since the bank has already questioned the correctness of the BL & LRO order dated 29th August, 2022, ‘it will be open to the appellants/bank to canvas all points in the said writ petition and seek for appropriate orders and directions therein’. In the said conspectus, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned in the present appeal and accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the writ petition shall be finally decided without being influenced by the observations made in the present order. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)