25.08.2026 Item No.19 Court No.01 Avijit Mitra WPA (P) 22 of 2026 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2026 Rajkumar Sardar - Versus – The State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee, Mr. Soumyadeep Nag, Mr. Rehan Mehbub ….for the petitioner Mr. D.N. Ray, Ld. G.P., Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, A.G.P., Mr. Madhu Jana, Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar, Ms. Puja Sonkar ....for the State Mr. Atri Mandal, Mr. Ankit Dey ...for the respondent no.5 Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Ms. Suryatapa Das, Ms. Sinjini Chakraborti, Ms. Anushka Dasgupta …for the respondent no.12 The present Public Interest Litigation (in short, PIL) has been preferred by the petitioner claiming to be a resident of Kamalpur Gram, South 24 Parganas regarding a road construction project of the Sundarban Development Board (in short, SDB) stating inter alia that a work order dated 16th October, 2025 was issued to a contractor being M/s. S.S. Enterprises to construct a cement concrete road from Kurulia Khal Bridge to Gostachandi Moth following a specific route. However, the contractor deviated from the work order and illegally constructed the road through a separate route excluding a portion of the road from Gandhi Maity shop to Kamalpur Free Primary School, as indicated in the plan annexed to the writ petition at page 25. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner strenuously argues that in the memo dated 16th October, 2025, there was a specific direction upon the contractor to construct one cement concrete road of 2500 meter from Kurulia Khal Bridge to Gostachandi Moth, via Gandhi Maity shop via Kamalpur F.P. School via Kamalpur Purbapally Sarkari Thakur Than via Madhampally Thakur Than via House of Khairul Molla, mouza-Srinagar and GP Srinagar, PS Hardwoodpoint Coastal and Block Kakdwip under Kakdwip-I Sub Division of C.E.O.-II, S.D.B. However, after obtaining the work order from the concerned department, the contractor did not follow the same and whimsically constructed the road as per his whims leaving aside the road from Gandhi Maiti Shop to Kamal F.P. School. Such act being contradictory to the work allotted, the respondents are under an obligation to construct the portion of the road that has been left out and as indicated in the map annexed at page 25 of the writ petition. He further submits that such illegalities, as perpetrated, were brought to the notice of the statutory 2 authorities contemporaneously but the same were not considered. The respondents have thus violated their statutory obligations warranting interference of this Court. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the present PIL has been preferred for redressal of a public grievance. The right sought to be established through the present writ petition, is not a right of a particular individual. The acts and omissions as pleaded in the writ petition, violate the laws designed to safeguard the community and the society at large. In the said conspectus, the writ petition needs to be allowed upon issuing necessary directions upon the respondents to construct the portion of the road which has been left out. Mr. Mandal, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.5 denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Chatterjee. According to him, initially, the proposal was towards construction of a 2.5 kms road stretching from ‘Kurulia Khal Bridge to Gandhi Maity Shop via Kamalpur F.P. School to Gostachandi Moth via Kamalpur Purbapally Sarkari Thakurthan via Madhyampally Thakurthan to Khairul Molla’s house’. Subsequent thereto, a revised proposal was placed for the financial year 2024-25 and by a memo dated 14th March, 2025 it was indicated that the scheme would be towards construction of a concrete cement road of 3 1562 meter from ‘Kurulia Khal Bridge to Gostachandi Moth via Gandhi Maity Shop via Kamalpur FP School via Kamalpur Purbapally Sarkari Thakur than via Madhyampally Thakurthan via house of Khairul Molla’. The said road, as indicated in the memo dated 14th March, 2025, would tally with the road route detailed in the memo dated 16th October, 2025. In the said conspectus, the allegation of Mr. Chatterjee that the authorities have deviated from the road plan is not sustainable. He further submits that the respondent no.12 was issued the work order pertaining to the work detailed in the letter dated 16th October, 2025 and the same was successfully completed by the said respondent. Ms. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.12 submits that the work has been completed by the respondent no.12 in strict consonance with the work order as issued and as admitted by SDB itself but the dues of the respondent no.12 had been illegally withheld as the present writ petition is pending. Detailing such facts, the said respondent has also filed an application being IA No.CAN 1 of 2026 for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondent no.5 to release the entire contractual amount. 4 We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, the initial proposal was for construction of a cement concrete road of 2.5 kms from ‘Kurulia Khal Bridge to Gandhi Maity Shop via Kamalpur F.P. School to Gostachandi Moth via Kamalpur Purbapally Sarkari Thakurthan via Madhyampally Thakurthan to Khairul Molla’s house’. Upon conducting a reconnaissance survey, the department identified that the construction of a cement concrete road as initially proposed would face technical and administrative difficulties due to factors including the presence of trees on both sides, narrow earthen road, requirement of acquisition of private lands on both sides of the earthen road. In view of such circumstances, the stretch of the proposed road from Kamalpur Gandhi Maity shop to Kamalpur F.P. School was required to be excluded from the initial proposal and the new route stood as ‘Kurulia Khal Bridge to Gostachandi Moth via Gandhi Maity Shop via Kamalpur FP School via Kamalpur Purbapally Sarkari Thakur than via Madhyampally Thakurthan via house of Khairul Molla’. In the said conspectus, we are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Chatterjee that the work indicated in the memo dated 16th October, 2025 has not been 5 completed by the respondent no.12 and that as a consequence thereof the common villagers had been the worst sufferers. For the reasons discussed above, we are unable to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Needless to observe, dues, if any, payable to the respondent no.12 shall be disbursed by the respondent no.5 subject to compliance of all necessary formalities and in accordance with law. The application being IA No.CAN 1 of 2026 is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 6