31.08.2026 rpan/14 WPA (P) 360 of 2026 Md. Giasuddin Molla - Versus - State of West Bengal & Others Mr. Shibjit Mitra, Mr. Subhasish Mitra, Ms. Triparna Das … for the Petitioner. Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Mr. Mrinal Kanti Das … for the State/Respondents. Mr. Swarajit Dey, Mr. Saptarshi Kar … for the DVC/Respondent no.8. The present public interest litigation (in short PIL) has been preferred primarily praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondent authorities ‘to forthwith take effective steps for preventing any further illegal cutting, felling, removal and transportation of trees standing upon the Damodar Valley Corporation land situated in and around Sahadev Gram Panchayat and Darhatta Gram Panchayat under Haripal Police Station, District Hooghly’. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that several private individuals and antisocial elements are felling down and removing trees situated in the areas falling within the Sahadev Gram Panchayat and the Darhatta Gram Panchayat under Haripal Police Station, District – Hooghly. Trees existing on the adjoining land belonging to the Damodar Valley Corporation (in short, DVC) have also been illegally removed. The removal of such matured trees of various species including saal, shegun, mahogany, sishu, simul and shirish would be affecting the ecosystem for which the inhabitants of the locality would be the worst sufferers. A comprehensive complaint to that effect has also been submitted to the authorities on 15th June, 2026 but the same has not been responded to. Such denial to discharge statutory obligation warrants interference of this Court. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned senior advocate appearing for the State authorities denies and disputes the contention of the petitioner. Mr. Dey, learned advocate appearing for the DVC/respondent no.8 submits that though the concerned land was acquired by the DVC, the same had presently been handed over to the State authorities for operation and maintenance of the canal constructed on the said land. We have been informed that the respondent no.7 would be the competent authority to consider the grievances of the petitioner. However, no explanation is forthcoming as to why the petitioner’s representation has not been considered. 2 Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the PIL pending and the issue needs to be relegated to the competent authority for consideration upon conducting an enquiry. In view thereof, the PIL is disposed of directing the respondent no.7 to consider the representation dated 15th June, 2026 submitted by the petitioner, upon conducting an enquiry and upon granting an opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties. The respondent no.7 shall thereafter take a reasoned decision and necessary follow up steps and communicate such decision to the parties. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent no.7 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 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.) 3