11-09-2026 rpan/08 W. P. A. 7175 of 2026 M/s. Brand Creation -Versus- State of West Bengal & Others Mr. Ashim Kr. Routh, Ms. Ananya Mondal, Ms. Subhayan Banik, Mr. Murari Mohan Ganguly … for the Petitioner. Ms. Anita Kundu, Ms. Sreetama Neogi …. for the State/Respondents. Mr. Anish Kr. Mukherjee, Mr. Suryaneel Deb, Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty … for the BMC. Mr. (Dr.) Madhusudan Saha Roy, Ms. Debanana Dey, Mr. Debanjan Chatterjee …. for the Respondent nos.3 to 5. 1. Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept with the record. 2. The writ petition has been filed by one M/s. Brand Creation representing by its proprietress indicating that a representation was filed on 2nd June, 2025 before the Executive Engineer, Nabadiganta Industrial Township Authority, being the respondent no.4 seeking permission for advertisement rights on bus shelters and unipoles within its jurisdiction. Considering the said representation dated 2nd June, 2025 the respondent no.4 duly accepted the proposal for advertisement for the period of six months commencing from 1st August, 2025 up to 31st January, 2026. Consonance with the communication dated 25th July, 2025, issued by the respondent no.4, the petitioner duly submitted the licence fee as charged and continued till 31st January, 2026. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation on 10th January, 2026 praying for renewal of permission for continuation of the advertisement rights on bus shelters and Uni poles. The prayer for renewal was not accepted by the respondent authority. Due to non consideration of the representation for renewal, the petitioner duly filed the instant writ petition. 4. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that there was a specific prayer for renewal of permission and the same was submitted prior to completion of the tenure, as granted by way of memo dated 25th July, 2025. He further argues that there was a rider in the communication dated 25th July, 2025 that the tenure could be extended for an additional six months. For such reason, the petitioner has prayed for consideration of the representation dated 10th January, 2026. 5. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 to 5 argues that the acceptance of proposal of advertisement expired on 31st January 2026 and renewal of permission cannot be claimed as a matter of right. He further submits that the writ 2 petitioner has not approached this court with a clean hand. By way of a memo dated 27th January 2026, the petitioner herein was communicated through mail indicating inter alia that the petitioner unauthorisely and illegally removed advertisement flex of Government of West Bengal from Uni Poll no. 8 and placed Commercial advertisement in its place in the dread of night and for such, the renewal of permission was rejected. 6. Copy of the memo dated 27th June 2026 including photocopy of service through mail relating thereto has been placed before this Court and same is kept with the record. 7. Considering the submissions of the respective parties, it is found that the writ petition has been affirmed on 20th March 2026, much later from the date of expiry of the contract and the writ petitioner was informed with regard to denial of renewal of permission on 27th January 2026 and the same was sent through mail. 8. Even after having knowledge to that effect the writ petitioner did not disclose the facts in the writ petition. 9. In the said conspectus, I am of the opinion that the writ petition does not deserve any relief. Thus the writ petition being WPA No. 7175 of 2026 is hereby dismissed. 3 10. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) 4