IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appellate Side 13.08.2026 D/L 06 Court No. 4 (Naba) F.M.A. 29 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2023 Shubhra Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ekramul Bari, Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Mondal ...for the Appellant Ms. Chandreyi Alam, ld. A.G.P., Ms. Runu Mukherjee ...for the State Mr. Srijan Nayak, Mrs. Rituparna Maitra ...for the WBSEDCL Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley ...for the DPL (Durgapur Projects Limited) 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner and the learned advocate for the Durgapur Projects Limited (DPL). The State and the WBSEDCL are also represented. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner is claiming separate H.R.A., despite H.R.A. being paid to her husband. The claim is under Clause-8 of DPL, 2020 ROPA Rules. The authorities rejected the claim by a letter dated 27.04.2022. The same was put to challenge in the writ proceeding. In the writ 2 proceeding, the petitioner was not allowed any relief. The order of the writ court dated 09.02.2023, passed in WPA 18738 of 2022, is the order under appeal, in the present Intra-Court Appeal. 3. The learned Single Judge took note of the facts on record that the writ petitioner and her husband were not residing beyond a distance of 50 kms. The Writ Court also considered a fact that separate rent receipts were not produced. The claim was accordingly found unsustainable. The Writ Court, therefore, did not find any fault in the rejection dated 27.04.2022, by the authorities. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the distance was wrongly assessed. It is also submitted that there was a subsisting rent agreement with the landlord, however, the landlord did not issue rent receipts. Therefore, the writ petitioner was not in a position to produce the rent receipts. 5. He referred to a report dated 15.09.2022 filed by the authorities before the Writ Court, to submit that merely on account of non-production of rent receipts, the appellant/writ petitioner was deprived of the benefit. The rent receipt was to be issued by the landlord. If the same was not issued 3 for some reason or the other, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on this score. 6. The learned advocates representing the respondents have opposed the appellant’s prayer. According to them, the Writ Court after according consideration passed an order rejecting the claim. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have rent receipts. The distance between the two separate residences claimed was also found to be not more than 50 kms., as contemplated under the Rules relied upon. Thus, there was no occasion for the Writ Court to exercise its jurisdiction to pass any order in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. 8. Insofar as the submission that the petitioner and her spouse were residing more than 50 kms. apart, we find that the distance was measured by the authorities. A report was submitted before the Writ Court that the distance was less than 50 kms. In absence of any mala fide alleged against the authorities, or any other grounds coming within the narrow scope of judicial review, the Writ Court rightly refused to sit in appeal over such a disputed issue of fact in exercise of extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction. 9. Insofar as the issue of non-issuance of rent receipts is concerned, the issue would assume 4 significance only if the spouses were living more than 50 kms. apart. 10. Since, this issue of fact has already been ascertained by the authorities, who found the claim to be unsustainable on account of the spouses being living not more than 50 kms. apart, there is no occasion for this Court to look into any other aspect. 11. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order dated 09.02.2023, passed by the Writ Court in WPA 18738 of 2022. 12. The Intra-Court Appeal is dismissed. 13. Pending application also stands disposed of. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)