21 05.08.2026 Court No. 10 D.Hira WPA 10790 of 2026 Sumita Sana vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Debashis Banerjee, Mr. Rakesh Jana, Mr. Apurba Kolya …for the petitioner Ms. Manju Agarwal, ld. AGP., Ms. Sabita Roy, Ms. Manisha Paswan. … for the State 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition is the proprietor of Panitar Indane Gramin Vitrak, an authorised showroom and gas godown of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Panitar, Basirhat, North 24 Paraganas. 3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging inter alia the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not taking any effective steps despite repeated complaints made by the petitioner. 4. It is submitted that within the limits of Itinda Panitar Panchayat, a private respondent namely, Sudeb Halder being the private respondent herein has erected and is running two gas godowns in close proximity to the petitioner’s residence and business premises. 2 5. It is further submitted that the said private respondent does not possess any government approved license and is allegedly carrying on business illegally by storing LPG cylinders in a dangerous place, thereby endangering public safety. 6. The petitioner already submitted a detailed representation dated 24.04.2026 before the concerned authorities, but no action has been taken till date. 7. The petitioner seeks a very limited prayer for direction upon the authorities to consider the said representation and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 8. The Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that an FIR has already been registered by the petitioner against the private respondent and that a separate Writ Petition challenging Police inaction is also pending before this Court. 9. The Learned Counsel appearing for the State does not object to the prayer of the petitioner. 10. Having heard the parties through their respective counsels upon considering the materials available on record this Court finds that the petitioner has been able to make a prima facie case warranting interference at this stage. 11. The issue involved is serious in nature relating to storage of LPG cylinders, public safety and therefore 3 requires proper consideration and adjudication by the competent authority. 12. In order to balance the equities and for the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the pending representation of the petitioner be considered and disposed of by the concerned authorities within a time bound manner. 13. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:- a. The respondent No. 5 is directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 24.04.2026 submitted by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the communication of this order. b. While disposing of the representation the respondent No. 5 shall pass a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law upon an affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, private respondent, and other stakeholders, if any and such decision shall be communicated to all the concerned parties within a week thereafter. c. However, it is made clear that an inspection shall be conducted to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made in the representation dated 24.04.2026. The respondent No. 5 shall take an independent decision on the basis of materials placed on record and shall not be influenced by any observation made herein. 4 d. With the above observation and directions, Writ Petition stands disposed of without going into the merits of the case. 14. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously. (Smita Das De, J.)