September 18, 2026 (327) ARDR WPA 28902 of 2025 Dilip Roy @ Dilip Kumar Roy Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Debjit Mukherjee, Adv. Kaustav Bhattacharya, Adv. Shreejita Sen, …for the petitioner. Sr. Adv. Tapas Kumar Banerjee, Adv. Suman Bose, Adv. Shyam Sachin Basu …for the private respondents. Adv. Madhu Jana, Adv. Puja Sonkar, …for the State. The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Pradhan, Rajarhat-Bishnupur Gram Panchayat on 9th December, 2025 on the ground that the said order has not been passed in compliance with the direction of this Court. By an order passed on 9th September, 2025 in WPA 30422 of 2025, this Court directed as hereunder: “8. In view of the above and considering the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for the appearing parties, the respondent No.5, Pradhan, Rajarhat, Bishnupur 2 No. Gram Panchayat is directed to consider the matter pertaining to stop work notice dated 4th December, 2024 by adopting the following procedure: (i) Cause an inspection on the property-in-question upon notice to the petitioner as well as private respondent Nos.6 and 7. A report of such inspection along with sketch map be prepared, which shall be handed over to the parties. 2 (ii) Thereafter the parties shall be heard upon notice and the matter relating to stop work notice dated 4th December, 2024 shall be disposed of by a reasoned order which shall be communicated to the parties within a week of passing of such orders. Parties are granted liberty to produce all relevant records and documents before the Pradhan at the time of hearing. (iii) On the basis of materials transpiring during inspection and hearing, the proceedings shall be taken to its logical conclusion in terms of provisions of Section 23 of West Bengal Panchayat Act. (iv) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from date of communication of this order.” In compliance thereof, an inspection of the property was held upon service of notice to the parties and in their presence. However, instead of handing over a copy of the inspection report to the parties and granting them an opportunity of hearing, the order impugned was passed. By the said order, the Pradhan has placed reliance on the inspection report and directed the petitioner to demolish the construction in question. The inspection report has been annexed to the said order. But the sketch map does not appear to have been served upon the parties. The order impugned has been passed in gross violation of the order passed by this Court on 9th September, 2025. Learned counsel for the private respondents accedes to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and 3 submits that the order impugned does not adhere to the direction passed by this Court. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the order impugned dated 9th September, 2025 is de hors the direction passed by this Court in the order dated 9th September, 2025 and is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 9th September, 2025 is quashed/set aside. The Pradhan, Rajarhat-Bishnupur Gram Panchayat, being the 6th respondent herein, is directed to make over copy of the inspection report and the sketch map to the petitioner and the private respondents and revisit the issue in terms of the order dated 9th September, 2025. The Pradhan shall arrive at a reasoned decision within four weeks from the date of communication this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall however, be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)