S/L 13 20.07.2026 Court. No. 25 suvayan WPA 16912 of 2026 M/s. Manna Engineering Works Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sudip Deb, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty Ms. Bratati Pramanick Mr. Shantanu Chakraborty … for the petitioner. Mr. Falguni Bandopadhyay Mr. Antariksha Karmakar …for the State. Mr. Soumya Mukherjee … for W.B.P.C.B. Ms. Sonal Sinha Mr. Ankit Sureka …for the respondent no. 9. 1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is kept with the record. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the impugned order dated June 24, 2026 passed by the respondent no. 6 directing the Officer-in- Charge, Shibpur Police Station to oversee the compliance of this order, in case any violation of this order, he is at liberty to take necessary action in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the said order, the Officer-in-Charge, Shibpur Police Station came to the workplace of the petitioner and closed the fabrication unit of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this the second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Assistant Environmental Engineer dated March 6, 2026. 2 By an order dated April 9, 2026 this Court has set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to decided complaint filed by the complainant by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after supplying the copy of the complaint to the petitioner and the report, if any relied by the authorities. The petitioner submits that the inspection notice was issued on May 26, 2026 and on the same day the inspection was carried out. Subsequently, the hearing was fixed on June 24, 2026 and the notice was only issued on June 23, 2026 at 3.15 p.m. 4. It is the specific allegation of the petitioner in the present writ application that in spite of the direction passed by this Court, the respondent authorities without supplying the copy of the complaint and the copy of the report on the basis of which the impugned order is passed is not served to the petitioner. Petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that in the impugned order, the respondent authorities also relied upon the proceedings dated March 6, 2026 which this Court has already set aside and quashed by an order dated April 9, 2026. 5. It is also the contention of the petitioner that as per the circular dated October 17, 2023 there are only four categories of areas that is, industrial area, commercial area, residential area and silence zone but in the present case, the authorities have admitted that the factory of the petitioner is situated in the mixed zone that is residential cum commercial area, but in the circular dated October 17, 2023 there is no mentioning of the mixed zone but the authorities have held that the noise level inside the unit 3 work zone area is 87.07 db(A) and noise level measuring from the complainant’s flat is 75.02 db(A). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if there is no mixed zone/area is mentioning in the circular how the authorities have decided with regard to the said noise level. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that after the order passed by this Court, the authorities have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner has appeared before the authorities and as such the petitioner cannot say that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. He further submits that on the inspection of the premises-in-question it was found that the petitioner has violated the noise level as per the circular and as such the impugned order is passed. 8. Learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board submits that though the inspection was carried out and the hearing notice was given to the petitioner but the copy of the complaint and the report was not served to the petitioner and only at the time of passing the order the report was served to the petitioner. 9. Considering the above, this Court finds that the respondent authorities have passed the impugned order without complying the direction passed by this Court by supplying the copy of the complaint as well as the report to the petitioner before the hearing of the matter. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and quashed, the respondent nos. 6 and 8 are directed to supply the copy of the complaint and report relied by the respondents to the petitioner within two weeks from the 4 date of receipt of this order. The petitioner is liberty to file his objection to the complaint and the report within a period of two weeks thereafter. After receipt of reply/objection from the petitioner to the concerned authorities, if any, filed by the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing the reasoned and speaking order within four weeks after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 11. WPA 16912 of 2026 is disposed of. 12. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)