04 2244..0088..22002266 Ct. No. 446 Jayanta WPA 22329 of 2026 BIDHAN CHANDRA ROY MARKET STALL HOLDERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS ….. petitioners VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …. Respondents. Adv. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya Adv. Mr. Firdous Samim Adv. Ms. Gopa Biswas Adv. Ms. Ankita Ghosh Adv. Mr. Hasanuzzaman Molla Adv. Ms. Salini Bhattacharjee Adv. Mr. Imzamamul Islam Adv. Mr. Naman Shah Adv. Ms. B. Dutta Adv. Mr. Asik Mondal Adv. Ms. Ayush Majumder …. For the Petitioners Ld. AAG. Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya Adv. Mr. Atreya Chakraborty …. For the State Ld. ASGI. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi Adv. Mr. Vipul Kundalia Adv. Ms. Anamika Pandey Adv. Mr. Major Mitisha Rawal Adv. Mr. Anindya Kanan Adv. Mr. Pradyat Saha Adv. Mr. Arijit Majumdar …. For the Respondent No. 1 & 3 Adv. Mr. Sakya Sen Adv. Mr. Sevadeep Sen …. For the Respondent No. 2 Adv. Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Adv. Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee …. For the KMC 2 1. Affidavit of service and the documents showing payment of deficit court fees, as placed by the petitioners is taken on record. 2. The grievance of the Petitioners, who are stall holders under the Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy Market Stall Holders’ Association, situated at Esplanade (presently known as Dharmatala), Kolkata, is essentially that, in view of the proposed construction of the Joka-Esplanade Metro Rail Station, forming part of the Joka-Esplanade Metro Corridor, they are required to vacate their respective stalls and temporarily shift to an alternative site. Although an assurance and undertaking have been given that, upon completion of the project, they would be restored to the market and/or suitably rehabilitated, no specific time-frame has been fixed within which, after completion of the project, such restoration or rehabilitation would be effected. 3. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, referring to the minutes of the coordination meeting held on 24th April, 2024 at Maidan Tent, attended by the Secretary of the B. C. Ray Market Stall Holders’ Association, representatives of the State authorities and representatives of the Ministry of Defence, Rail Vikash Nigam Limited (for short, RVNL) and the Union of India, submits that three options were placed before the Petitioners at the said meeting. The Petitioners accepted Option No. II, under which the market was proposed to be temporarily shifted to the southern side, over the Mounted 3 Police Paddock, within the station working area. It was further contemplated that construction will be done/completed in vacated area, including the L-20 bus stand & Dufferin Road (with diversion of the road), and, upon completion of the station, the market would be relocated to its original location and construction would be taken up in the paddock area. 4. Drawing my attention to the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd September, 2025, which were communicated to the Secretary of the Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy Market Stall Holders’ Association by a letter dated 29th July, 2025 issued by the Additional General Manager/Civil/Expert, RVNL, Kolkata, Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that, in the said meeting, it was decided that the PWD would forward to the Petitioners the proposed drawing for reconstruction of the market within the working zone of the Esplanade Metro Station, as permitted by the Ministry of Defence. It was further decided that RVNL would submit to the PWD a draft undertaking setting out its responsibility for rehabilitating/shifting the stall holders from the temporary location to the permanent location upon completion of the Esplanade Metro Station. However, till date, no such documents have been provided to the Petitioners. 5. Referring to another communication issued by the Deputy Director (Lands), Ministry of Defence, Government of India, appearing at page 511 of the writ petition, he submits that the said communication clearly indicates that the status quo ante would be restored by relocating the B. C. Roy Market 4 from the temporary site back to its original location upon completion of the project. 6. He submits that a definite time-frame may be stipulated within which the stall holders would be relocated to their original site, namely, the Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy Market, upon completion of the project. 7. Mr. Trivedi, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, vehemently opposes the contention advanced by Mr. Bhattacharyya. He submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner association has no locus standi to make such a representation. He contends that a project undertaken in public interest, having substantial public importance and serving a larger public purpose, ought not to be stalled at the instance of the petitioners, who have neither any right, title nor interest in respect of the land upon which the market is situated. 8. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, strenuously opposes such prayer. Referring to the prohibition contained in Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, he submits that an infrastructure project of such nature cannot be stalled by granting an injunction which would cause impediment to, or delay in, the progress or completion of the project. He contends that the statutory bar under Section 20A operates against the grant of any such injunction in respect of an infrastructure project. 9. Mr. Bhattacharyya further submits that no case for grant of injunction is made out in the present case. He contends that 5 a mere apprehension on the part of the petitioners that, notwithstanding the assurance extended by the competent authorities, they may not be restored to the original site or suitably rehabilitated, cannot constitute a sufficient ground for granting an order of injunction. 10. Mr. Sen, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the RVNL, opposes the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that a temporary site has been identified and a layout plan has been prepared, and that all basic amenities have been arranged to enable the stall owners to carry on their business from the said site. He informs the Court that 22 stall owners and 17 hawkers have already been relocated to the temporary site. 11. In response to such contention of Mr. Sen, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the hawkers have been accorded a more advantageous position, whereas the original stall owners have been placed in a comparatively disadvantageous position. 12. Mr. Sen was quick to respond to such contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya, submitting that, as per the layout plan duly signed by the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D., the stalls have been allotted, and are to be allotted, to the respective stall owners and hawkers. 13. A copy of the lay out has been handed over to Mr. Bhattaharyya in Court today. 6 14. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 15. It is not in dispute that the land upon which the market presently stands belongs to the Ministry of Defence and that the proposed Metro project is a public infrastructure project of considerable importance and in view of the proposed construction of the Esplanade Metro Station under the Joka–Esplanade Metro Corridor, the market is proposed to be temporarily shifted to facilitate the execution of the Metro project. 16. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the land upon which the market presently stands belongs to the Ministry of Defence, this Court is not inclined to issue a writ of mandamus or pass any order directing the respondents to furnish or execute any undertaking as in the precise terms prayed for by the petitioners. A Court, by issuing such an order or writ of mandamus, cannot create or recognise in favour of the petitioners a right of permanent occupation which is otherwise not available to them in law. 17. However, it is also not in dispute that the market has been in existence for several decades and that the petitioners have been carrying on their respective businesses therein upon payment of charges or rent collected by the State Public Works Department. The basic civic amenities necessary for carrying on such businesses have also been provided by the State authorities. 18. As noted hereinbefore, the resolution adopted at the meeting held on 25.04.2024, appearing at page 478 of the 7 writ petition, indicates that three options were placed before the petitioners at the said meeting. The petitioners accepted Option No. II, under which it was proposed that, upon completion of the Metro Station, the market would be relocated to its original site. Further, from the minutes of the meeting held on 02.09.2025, appearing at page 504 of the writ petition, it appears that it was decided that RVNL would submit a draft undertaking to the PWD setting out RVNL's responsibility for rehabilitating/shifting the stall holders from the temporary location to their permanent market location upon completion of the Esplanade Metro Station. It further appears from the communication dated 19.06.2026 issued by the Deputy Director (Lands), Ministry of Defence, Government of India, appearing at page 511 of the writ petition, that the Ministry of Defence decided that the status quo ante may be restored by shifting the B.C. Roy Market back to its original site from the relocated site upon completion of the project. 19. In the aforesaid conspectus, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall not obstruct or otherwise impede the execution of the Joka– Esplanade Metro Project on the ground that no definite time frame has been stipulated for relocating the stall holders to the original site. However, it is expected that the respondents shall act in accordance with the assurance given by them to the petitioners regarding the relocation of the stall holders to the original site and take necessary steps in that regard within a reasonable period after completion of the project. In 8 the meantime, stall holders shall be accommodated at the temporary site as per layout plan, and all basic amenities shall be provided therein to facilitate the stall holders in carrying on their business. 20. With these observations and order, this writ petition is, thus, disposed of; however, without any order as to the costs. 21. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)