25.08.2026 Item No.06 Court No.01 Avijit Mitra WPA (P) 399 of 2026 Smt. Mamata Ray & ors. - Versus – The State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Aswini Kumar Bera, Mr. Arijit Bera ….for the petitioners Mr. Samrat Mukherji, A.G.P., Ms. Priyanka Barman ....for the State Mr. Soumya Mukherjee ...for the West Bengal Pollution Control Board Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati, Ms. Swastika Chowdhury, Ms. Ilika Nag, Mr. Avijit Chatterjee …for the respondent no.8 Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. The present writ petition has been preferred by the inhabitants of Maligram, Anchal No.5 stating, inter alia, that the respondent no.8 is illegally operating a poultry farm upon the land detailed in paragraph 3 of the writ petition without obtaining necessary permission from the Pollution Control Board. Mr. Bera, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that in the absence of consent to establish/consent to operate, the respondent no.8 cannot operate a poultry farm which is causing a nuisance and is polluting the environment of a residential zone. Several representations were submitted protesting against such illegal operation of the poultry farm but the same had not been responded to. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that upon receipt of a complaint against illegal operation of a poultry farm located at Village-Maligram, the Senior Environmental Engineer & in-Charge, Public Grievance Cell had already issued a memo dated 13th August, 2026 to the respondent no.5 calling for an Action Taken Report (in short, ATR). Let the copy of the said memo, as placed, be kept on record. Mr. Pati, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent no. 8 denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Bera and submits that the poultry farm is being run in a very small scale (1400 birds) for the last 11 years. The farm has a valid trade licence and that no pollution certificate is required for any farm operating with less than 5,000 birds. He further submits that the said respondent no.8 has already filed a writ petition being WPA 3414 of 2026 impleading the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 seeking police protection since the private respondents therein are forcibly attempting to stop the operation of the farm and are threatening the writ petitioner of dire consequences. As a counterblast the present writ petition has been preferred. Copies of the said writ petition being WPA 3414 of 2026 have already been 2 served upon the private respondents therein and the same had been duly received on their behalf. The pendency of the said writ petition has been deliberately suppressed in the present writ petition. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Public Interest Litigation is preferred for redressing a public grievance. It is aimed at redressal of a genuine public wrong or public injury. A public wrong refers to an act or omission that violates laws designed to safe guard the community or society at large, rather than just an individual right. It cannot be ruled out that the present writ petition involves private interest and the same has been preferred as a counter blast to the writ petition being WPA 3414 of 2026. The pendency of the said writ petition has also been suppressed. In the said conspectus, we are not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners herein and the present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 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.) 3