Ct.No.19 D/L 24.07.2026 61 Saikat Mukherjee WPA/19275/2025 SAMBITA RANA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Mr. Snehasis Jana, Adv. Mr. Chandrachur Lahiri, Adv. …For the Writ Petitioner Mr. Tapas Kr. Sil, Adv. Ms. Priya Panja, Adv. …For the Respondent-State 1. The contending parties are represented by their respective learned counsel. 2. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the writ petitioner is taken on record. 3. None appears on behalf of the Private Respondent Nos.9 to 10 despite service. 4. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner draws attention to Page No.22 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the Memo dated 19.11.2024 from which it would reveal that the jurisdictional Assistant Engineer, that is, the Respondent No.6 herein noticed encroachment over the P.W.D. land and requested the Respondent No.7 authority to initiate an appropriate proceeding in terms of the provision of West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (‘Act of 1964’ in short). It is submitted that despite receipt of such communication/memo and despite submission of the representation dated 26/27.06.2025 no action has been taken by the Respondent No.7 authority. 5. Learned advocate for the Respondent-State in his usual fairness submits before this Court that the Respondent No.7 authority may be directed to initiate a proceeding under section 10(3) of the Act of 1964 forthwith and to come to a logical conclusion at the earliest. 6. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the contending parties, this Court while disposing the instant writ petition directs the Respondent No.7 authority to act in terms of the notice under section 10(2) of the Act of 1964 as issued by the Respondent No.6 authority under cover of his Memo dated 19.11.2024. He is further directed to initiate a proceeding under section 10(3) of the Act of 1964 for removal of the encroachment and to come to a logical conclusion of such proceeding positively within 45 working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order. 7. It is needless to mention that in the said proceeding under section 10(3) of the Act of 1964 the Respondent No.7 authority shall give due opportunity of hearing both to the writ petitioner and private respondents and/or any other stakeholders, if there be any. Page 3 of 3 8. The time limit, as fixed by this Court, is peremptory and mandatory. 9. Learned advocate-on-record for the writ petitioner is directed to communicate the server copy of this order to the Respondent Nos.7 authority, who is directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. 10. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. 11. Before parting with, it is, however, made clear that while disposing of the instant petition this Court has not gone into the merits of the instant writ petition and thus, all points are kept open for adjudication before the Respondent No.7 authority. 12. Since affidavits have not been called for, the pleadings as made in the instant writ petition are deemed to have been denied. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)