15.07.2026 Item No.07 Court No.01 KCP WPA(P) 288 of 2026 Lalmohan Chattopadhyay & Ors. - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha …. For the Petitioners Mr. Rajdeep Mazumdar, Ld. A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Milind Mohul Ghosh …. For the State Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee Ms. Indumouli Banerjee Mr. Adhip Narayan Banerjee …. For the respondent no.5 Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. The present Public Interest Litigation (in short, PIL) has been preferred primarily praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondent No.3 ‘to fill up the hole and restore it’s original position which she has made for construction of concrete drain upon Gopalnagar Kaliprasanna Kerr Institution’s Boarding ground immediately otherwise school’s property will be used at one’s will and ultimately it will beyond control of the school’. Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that encroaching upon the property of Gopalnagar Kaliprasanna Kerr Institution (hereinafter referred to as the said school), a kachha drain has been constructed illegally and as a 2 consequence thereof, waste water accumulates in the adjacent plots giving rise to an unhygienic atmosphere. Such accumulation of water and waste materials is spreading diseases in the locality. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted a representation before the respondent no.2 on 23rd March, 2026 but the same has not been responded to. Mr. Sinha contends that the respondent no.5, who happens to be the Pradhan of the Gopalnagar Gram Panchayat, is instrumental towards such forcible construction of a kachha drain encroaching upon the school’s property. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.5 submits that the allegation levelled against the said respondent is absolutely unfounded. A concrete drain was constructed by the Kolaghat Panchayat Samity under the APAS scheme and the same is catering to the needs of the locality. The Public Health Engineering ‘Sajaldhara’ connection was installed in the area without any proper outlet drain as such used water and rain water naturally flows downward over the PWD road. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State authorities submits that after the writ petition was filed and served, a field 3 enquiry was conducted by the respondent no.3 at the premises of the said school’s boarding ground where no evidence of drilling activities relating to drainage construction was found. However, there exists a kachha drain of approximate 1’ width and 1’ depth alongside the PWD road which is adjacent to the school’s boarding ground. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. The issue urged by Mr. Sinha is that the respondents have illegally encroached upon the said school’s property and have constructed a kachha drain. However, such construction does not appear to have been protested against by the school authorities. Such alleged encroachment indisputably involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be satisfactorily gone into or adjudicated in a PIL. However, as it has been submitted that accumulation of waste water in a kachha drain is spreading diseases in the locality, the competent administrative authority needs to consider such grievance and take a decision as to whether the waste water flowing from the kachha drain can be diverted to the concrete drain as constructed by the Panchayat Samity. 4 In view thereof, the present writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation along with all relevant documents before the respondent no.3 within a period of two weeks from date. In the event, such representation is submitted within the period specified, the said respondent no.3 shall consider the same upon granting an opportunity of hearing to a representative of the petitioners, the respondent no.5, the school authorities and other interested parties, if any and take a decision, in accordance with law. Such decision shall be communicated to the petitioners within a period of six weeks upon receipt of the petitioners’ representation. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the petitioners’ claim and all points are kept open to be considered by the said respondent no.3. 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.)