Item No.34 31.08.2026 Court. No. 9 (Saswata) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE JURISDICTION WPA 1887 of 2026 Roshan Lama Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Subham Gupta …for the Petitioner. Mr. Jaagriti Mishra, Ld. AAAG. Mrs. Rajni Singh …for the Sate 1. Though, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the blocking of the vehicle on the portal of the respondent no. 5, however, records reveal that the petitioner had previously approached this Court in WPA 1290 of 2026. The petitioner claims to be a registered owner of a heavy goods vehicle. It is the petitioner’s case that he is earning his livelihood through transportation of river bed materials, stone chips, gravel and other mining materials. In ordinary c0urse of business, the petitioner is required to obtain royalty / e challan through the authorized system of West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd. (WBMDTCL) 2. The petitioner’s case further proceeds on the premise that when the driver of the vehicle had attempted to generate the e challan, he could not generate the same 2 and was informed that the e challan could not be generated in respect of the said vehicle. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that a message is being displayed stating tha the e challan could not be generated against the said vehicle as a case has been initiated and the owner of the vehicle has been advised to contact the office of the DL and LRO for getting the vehicle unblocked. 4. In the peculiar facts, the petitioner approached this Court in WPA 1290 of 2026. 5. A Coordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the parties, by order dated 29th July 2026 was of the view that the disputes involved in the writ petition requires adjudication of facts and accordingly, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned DL and LRO under the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016. 6. According to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid order, though the petitioner has approached the District Authority and had filed a representation since no steps were taken by them, the petitioner has approached this Court. 7. The State is represented. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the State that though initially, no steps were taken pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner following the order dated 29th July 2026, however, the concerned authority 3 having realized its mistake has now taken steps and has called upon the petitioner for hearing on 8th September 2026 and in support thereof, a notice dated 27th August 2026 has been disclosed. 9. In the peculiar facts, I am not inclined to keep the writ petition pending. 10. Having regard to the disclosure made, though ordinarily the conduct of the respondents does not appear to be just, however, considering the fact that now a decision has been taken to decide on the petitioner’s representation and a date has already been fixed, in my view it shall be prudent to direct the concerned Additional District Magistrate and DL & LRO, Jalpaiguri to decide on the petitioner’s representation on the said returnable date as blocking of a vehicle cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely. 11. It is made clear that the decision in this regard must be communicated to the petitioner within 24 hours from the date of taking such decision. 12. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 13. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)