28.08.2026 rpan/18 WPA (P) 417 of 2026 Kasinath Maji & Others - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Others Mr. Dilip Kr. Sinha, Mr. Sukdeb Sarkar … for the Petitioners. Mr. Chandreyi Alam (Gupta), Mrs. Bhaswati Lahiri, Mr. Kaustav Seal … for the State/Respondents. Mr. Sandip Ghosh, Mr. Sudarsan Roy, Mr. D. Majumder … for the Respondent nos.7 & 8. Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. The present public interest litigation (in short PIL) has been preferred primarily praying for issuance of necessary direction upon ‘the respondent authorities particularly the respondent Nos.4 and 6 herein to transmit and produce all relevant documents pertaining to this instant case before the Hon’ble Court so that conscionable justice may therein be administered by directing to the respondent No.4 to initiate proceeding by taking fresh enquiry and investigation report of the respondent No.6 herein to the extent of unauthorized, illegal encroachment made by the private respondent herein i.e. the petitioner of the above mentioned PIL matter and upon the Irrigation and Waterways Land being Plot No. 2285 and 2286’. Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the private respondent nos.7, 8 and the respondent no.9, who is a tenant under the respondent nos. 7 and 8, have encroached upon Government land and have raised unauthorised construction. Such fact was brought to the notice of the respondent nos.4 and 5 by a detailed representation submitted on 7th July, 2026. However, the State authorities have not considered the same and have not initiated appropriate proceedings against the said private respondents. Such inaction reveals that the State authorities are denying to discharge their statutory obligations. Ms. Alam (Gupta), learned advocate appearing for the State/respondents denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Sinha and submits that there had been no violation of statutory obligation on the part of the State authorities as this Court has been approached by the petitioner without even granting sufficient time to the State authorities to consider the grievances urged. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent nos.7 and 8 denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Sinha. 2 We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Records reveal that earlier one Shri Arindam Mondal and another preferred a PIL, being WPA (P) 210 of 2025 which was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 21st August, 2025 directing the concerned Sub Divisional Officer, Ghatal to expedite the hearing of Misc. Case No.32 of 2023 and to decide it in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of 120 days. Pursuant to such direction, it appears that steps have been taken by the concerned respondent. However, the complaint lodged on 7th July, 2026 by the petitioner urging that alleged unauthorised construction has been raised by the private respondents upon Government land, is yet to be addressed by the authorities. In view thereof, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the PIL pending and accordingly, the same is disposed of directing the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent no.4 herein to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner nos.1 and 2 on 7th July, 2026, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to all the interested persons and to take a decision, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, 3 preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order along with a copy of the writ petition. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 4