12 05.8.2026 Ct. No. 10 SB In The High Court At Calcutta Appellate Side Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction WPA 3987 of 2026 Rik Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ramesh Dhara Mr. Gourav Banerjee … for the petitioner Mr. Nikunj Berlia, Ld. AGP Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee Mr. Amalendu Bikas Dutta … for the State 1. The core issue involved herein as to a) Whether the Order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the respondent No. 3 is legally sustainable. b) Whether the petitioner was in possession of the proposed godown at Plot No. 162, Mouza – Dilkantih, J. L. No. 269 at the time of application. c) Whether the authority erred by considering plot No. 506 instead of Plot No. 162. 2. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the direction of this Hon’ble Court passed in WPO No. 604 of 2025 dated 21.08.2026 the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.06.2025 before the respondent no. 3. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 while disposing the representation dated 10.09.2025 arrived at an erroneous finding that at the time of application the petitioner was not in possession of the proposed godown at plot No. 162. The said finding is factually incorrect. At the time of online application, plot No. 506 was proposed. Due to cancellation of lease by the landlord a new lease deed dated 01.04.2024 was executed for plot No. 162. Though the said lease deed was not uploaded at the time of application, it was submitted physically before the authority and an enquiry was conducted accordingly on plot no. 162. 3. Thus the impugned order suffers from perversity and non-application of mind and liable to be set aside. 4. The finding of the authority is perverse since the authority considered the distribution with respect to plot No. 506 of the same Mouza instead of plot no. 162, which was the plot proposed. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from gross irregularity, is perverse and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner does not have a suitable godown as per his application. Since the basic criteria of possession of godown was not satisfied, the question of compliance with other criteria does not arise. Accordingly, the Order dated 10.09.2025 was rightly passed and requires no interference. 6. Having heard the parties and upon considering the materials available on record this Court finds, that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case, warranting interference at this stage. 7. The issue involves disputed questions of fact with regard to possession of the proposed godown. Such factual aspects require detailed consideration by the competent authority. 8.In the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be remanded to respondent No. 3 for fresh consideration. 9. The Order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh and comprehensive representation along with all supporting documents including the lease deed dated 01.04.2024 in respect of Plot No. 162 before respondent No. 3 within 10 days from today. 11. The respondent No. 3 shall consider the said representation and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of receipt of the same upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stakeholders, if any, and communicate such decision within a week thereafter. However, it is made clear that respondent No. 3 shall be at liberty to conduct an independent inquiry without being influenced by any observations made herein. 12. If the petitioner is found eligible and most suitable, respondent No. 3 shall take further steps in accordance with law. 13. With the above observations and directions the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. (Smita Das De, J.)