22.09.2026 Sl. No. 12 (DL) Ct.No.19 (Susanta) (Bench I.D. 266052) WPA 3663 of 2024 Nandini Bar’s Food’s & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, … for the petitioners. Mr. S. M. Hassan, Ms. Anupama Yasmin, ... for the Haldia Municipality. Dr. Siddhartha Goswami, Ms. Priyanka Shukla, … for the State. 1. The affidavit of service as filed today by the learned advocate for the writ petitioners is taken on record. 2. The writ petitioners, the respondent State and the respondent Haldia Municipality are represented by their respective learned advocates. 3. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 2, that is, the Chief Executive Officer, Haldia Development Authority, despite service. 4. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against respondent No. 2 authority commanding him to execute a registered deed of lease in favour of the writ petitioners in respect of the land, 2 particulars of which have been mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the instant writ petition. 5. In course of argument, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, at the very outset draws the attention of this Court to page No. 22 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the letter dated 13.12.2002, whereby and whereunder respondent No. 2 authority issued a letter of allotment in respect of the land as involved in the instant writ petition in favour of one Smt. Putul Mondal, who is writ petitioner No. 2 herein. 6. It is argued by Mr. Banerjee that in the said letter of allotment, there are some conditions which have been duly fulfilled by the writ petitioners, and the entire land premium as payable by the writ petitioners has also been paid and on such payment, possession of the said land was handed over to petitioner No. 2. 7. It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that page No. 29 of the instant writ petition reveals that the Haldia Municipality granted a municipal license in the name of petitioner No. 3, who happens to be the daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 2, for carrying on business in the name and style of "Nandini Hotel & Restaurant". 8. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that since the respondent no. 2 authority for the reasons best 3 known to him did not execute a registered deed of lease in favour of the writ petitioners despite compliance of all the terms and conditions of the said letter of allotment dated 13.12.2002, the writ petitioners, finding no other alternative, approached the respondent No. 2 authority by making series of representations, copies whereof are annexed with the instant writ petition. 9. It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that despite receipt of such representations, no steps have been taken by respondent No. 2 authority for executing a registered deed of lease in favour of writ petitioner No. 2 or writ petitioner No. 3. 10. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Haldia Municipality and learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State, in course of their submissions, contend that the respondent no. 2 authority is the answering respondent, and thus, they leave the matter for consideration of this Court. 11. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State, however, submits that the facts as involved in the instant writ petition is disputed question of facts, and, therefore, demarcation report from the jurisdictional BL&LRO, that is the respondent No. 6 is necessary. 4 12. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this Court, while disposing of the instant writ petition directs the respondent no. 2 authority to consider the writ petitioners’ representation dated 24.10.2016, a copy of which has been annexed at page nos. 36 & 37 of the instant writ petition and after giving a fair chance of hearing to the writ petitioners and their authorized representatives, shall pass a reasoned order upon such representation dated 24.10.2016 and shall forthwith communicate the same to the writ petitioners preferably by e-mail, in the event the e-mail details of the writ petitioners are communicated to him at the time of hearing. 13. The entire exercise, as indicated in the foregoing paragraph is to be completed by the respondent no. 2 authority within sixty working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order along with a copy of the representation dated 24.10.2016. 14. With the aforementioned, WPA 3663 of 2024 is disposed of. 15. Before parting with, it is, however, made clear that while disposing of the instant writ petition, this Court has not gone into the merits of the representation dated 24.10.2016 as submitted by the 5 writ petitioners and thus all points are kept open for adjudication by the respondent no. 2 authority. 16. Liberty is given to the learned advocate-on- record for the writ petitioners to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent no. 2 authority, who is directed to act on the server copy of this order. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen , J.)