25.08.2026 Item No.22 (DL) Court No.07 (Susanta) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION W.P.A. 18692 of 2026 < Smt. Alka Jain & Anr. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Anirban Das, Ms. Ritika Chowdhury, …for the petitioner. Mr. Sujit Sarkar Koley, ….for the WBSEDCL. Mr. Indradeep Pal, Ms. Sougata Pal Das, … for the State. 1. The petitioner complains of arbitrary action on the part of the respondent WBSEDCL authorities in erecting PCC electric pole on the petitioner’s property. 2. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the WBSEDCL authorities have erected the PCC electric pole on the petitioners’ land with the aid of the respondents, without the petitioners’ consent. 3. Mr. Koley, learned advocate appearing for the WBSEDCL authorities submits that no objection was raised at the time when the pole was raised. 4. Mr. Koley further submits that the poles have not been erected on the 2 petitioner’s property but by the side of a road which is a vested land. 5. Mr. Das, however, contradicts the same and submits that objection was raised prior to the erection of the pole. 6. However, at present nothing is on record to evince that objection was raised prior to the erection of pole. 7. In cases where poles have been alleged to be erected on a person’s property, the appropriate authority to resolve the issue is the one prescribed under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensee Rules, 2006. The District Magistrate of the relevant District is one such Authority. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty to make an appropriate representation before the respondent no. 3, i.e., the District Magistrate, Murshidabad seeking redressal of their grievances. 9. Upon such representation being made, the respondent no. 3 would initiate appropriate proceedings, conduct inspection and take a decision in the matter upon hearing the petitioner as well as WBSEDCL authorities. 10. Needless to mention that, every inspection that may be conducted, should 3 be so conducted in presence of the petitioner as well as the WBSEDCL authorities and all the parties should be given an opportunity to take exception to the inspection report that may be filed. 11. The District Magistrate shall thereafter dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order upon affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties and shall communicate the same to all the parties within a week from passing of such order. 12. The entire exercise as aforesaid will be concluded within a period of six weeks from the date of making the representation of the petitioner. 13. With the aforesaid observation, the WPA 18692 of 2026 stands disposed of. No costs. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)