Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandip Kumar De MAT 9 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 M/s. Shri Barsana E-Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. With MAT 10 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 M/s. Khandelwal Enterprises Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjib Dutta, Mr. Mongal Saren, Advs. Heard on : August 25, 2026. Judgment on : August 25, 2026. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J. : MAT 9 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that MAT 9 of 2026 has been rendered infructuous in view of the main writ petition, against an interim order passed in which the present appeal has been preferred, having since been disposed of. Accordingly, MAT 9 of 2026, along with CAN 1 of 2026, are dismissed as infructuous without any order as to costs. MAT 10 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 2. The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby the learned Single Judge directed affidavits to be exchanged in connection with a writ petition. 3. We find from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge recorded that the subject matter of the writ petition is with regard to non-issuance of certificate of registration to e-rickshaw vehicles manufactured by the writ petitioner on the ground of an order of injunction dated February 24, 2020 being passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Thirteenth Court at Alipore in Title Suit no. 27 of 2018 regarding registration of battery operated eco friendly e- rickshaws. 2 4. However, from the impugned order, we find that the learned Single Judge has merely directed affidavits to be exchanged between the parties and has not substantially decided any rights of the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant argues that from the impugned order itself it will be evident that the self-same Bench which passed the present impugned order had previously disposed of on merits writ petitions of similar nature at the outset, without directing any affidavits to be exchanged. 6. Accordingly, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have decided the present writ petition itself on the day when the same was moved, since the State was also represented by counsel. 7. However, we do not find any right of the parties being decided by the impugned order. Accordingly, there is no scope of interference within the limited scope of an intra-court appeal. 8. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, on the prayer of the State, merely directed affidavits to be filed. 9. In any event, the time stipulated for filing such affidavits has already expired. Yet, we are apprised that no affidavit has been filed as yet. Be that as it may, it is for the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition itself. No interference is called for in the present appeal. 10. Accordingly, MAT 10 of 2026, along with CAN 1 of 2026, are dismissed, thereby affirming the impugned order dated December 18, 2025 passed in WPA 25289 of 2025, with a request to the learned 3 Single Judge to consider early disposal of the writ petition itself on merits as per the convenience of the learned Single Judge. 11. We make it clear that the merits of the writ petition have not been gone into by this Court. 12. No order as to costs. 13. Urgent certified copies of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Sandip Kumar De, J.) AD -18-19 Ct No.16 25.08.2026 (SSS) 4