17.09.2026 Item No. 212. Court No.19. S. De 266052 WPA 18138 of 2014 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2017 (Old No. CAN/12226/2017) I.A. No. CAN 3 of 2019 (Old No. CAN/10803/2019) I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN/7573/2018) Anil Chandra Ghosh & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Kallol Basu, Mr. Nilanjan Pal, …for the petitioners. Mr. Nikunj Beria, Ld. AGP, Mr. Anirudhya Dutta, …for the State. In re : I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No.CAN/7573/2018) 1. The writ petitioners and the respondents/State are represented by their respective learned advocates. 2. At the very outset, this Court proposes to look to the order dated 10.07.2025. In the said order dated 10.07.2025, this Court observed that CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 7573 of 2018) was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench on 26.09.2019 and, thus, directed the department not to show pendency of CAN 2 of 2018 during subsequent listing of this case. 3. At the time of hearing, on further perusal of the said order dated 26.09.2019, it appears to this Court on the said date that is on 26.09.2019, a Co- ordinate Bench did not dispose of CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 7573 of 2018) and on the contrary directed that the main writ petition and the 2 pending interlocutory application to appear in the combined Monthly List of December, 2019. 4. In view of such, the order dated 10.07.2025, as passed by this Court in connection with CAN 2 of 2018, is hereby recalled. 5. CAN 2 of 2018 is treated to be in day’s list. In re : WPA 18138 of 2014, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2017 (Old No. CAN 12226 of 2017), I.A. No. CAN 3 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 10803 of 2019) & I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 7573 of 2018) 6. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have impugned the Memo dated 06.06.2014, as issued by the respondent no.4/Authority whereby and whereunder the respondent no.4/Authority demanded a sum of Rs.7,27,561/- towards revised usage charge for carrying out the work of manufacturing bricks in the kiln no. A-29A as involved in the instant writ petition. 7. By filing CAN 2 of 2018 (old No. CAN 7573 of 2018), the writ petitioners have prayed for stay of the operation of the demand notice dated 17.10.2017 as made by the respondent no.4/Authority with the writ petitioners for payment of sum of Rs.11,06,529 towards usage charges of the said kiln for the year 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. 8. By filing CAN 3 of 2019, the writ petitioners have prayed for appropriate order directing the respondent authorities not to give effect the 3 demand dated 22.10.2019, a copy of which has been annexed at page no.94 of the said CAN 3 of 2019. 9. By filing CAN 1 of 2017, the writ petitioners have prayed for stay of the operation of the notices which, according to the writ petitioners, were served on 30.10.2018. 10. At the time of hearing, Mr. Basu, learned advocate duly assisted by Mr. Pal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset, draws attention of this Court to page no.8 of the affidavit-in-reply of the writ petitioners to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 as affirmed on 07.07.2025. 11. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that by issuing a Memo dated 03.12.2012, the respondent no.3/Authority informed the writ petitioners that in the event the writ petitioners intend to carry out further work of manufacturing of bricks in the said kiln that would be done at a revised usage charge of Rs.4,96,933/- upon execution of a fresh agreement which would be initially for a period of one year and the same may be continued for further four years but not more than one year at a time at the rate of previous year’s usage charges with 10% escalation on previous year’s usage charge. 4 12. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that the writ petitioners agreed to the said Memo dated 03.12.2012 and, accordingly, an agreement dated 08.05.2013 was entered into between the writ petitioners and the respondent no.3/Authority for carrying out the brick production activity with effect from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013 at a consideration of Rs.4,96,933/-. 13. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that in terms of the said Memo dated 03.12.2012, it was agreed upon that the validity of the said agreement is initially for one year which would be renewed for further one year and up to four years but not more than one year at a time on payment of previous years’ usage charge with 10% escalation cost. 14. At this juncture, Mr. Basu took me to page 42 of the instant writ petition being a Memo dated 27.08.2013. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that by issuing the said Memo dated 27.08.2013, the writ petitioners were prevented from carrying out the brick filed operation for the next session that is 2013-2014 and by the impugned Memo dated 06.06.2014 (page 45 of the writ petition), the respondent authority more specifically the respondent no.4/Authority most unilaterally demanded escalated usage charge of Rs.7,27,561/- for running brick field operation in the said kiln for the year 2013-2014. 5 15. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that when the writ petitioners and the respondent authorities, more specifically, the respondent no.3 and 4/authorities have entered into a concluded contract regarding functioning of the brick operation at the kiln at an agreed rate, the respondent authorities’ demand for payment of escalated usage charge to the tune of Rs.7,27,561 is unjust and contrary to the settled principle of law. 16. It is further submitted by Mr. Basu that in an intra Court appeal an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court permitted the present writ petitioners to carry out the brick field operation subject to deposit of Rs.4,96,933/- together with 10% escalation cost. 17. It is argued by Mr. Basu that such order of the Hon’ble Division Bench has been duly complied with by depositing the requisite amount with the authority and the balance amount with the office of the learned Registrar General of this High Court. 18. In support of CAN 1 of 2017, Mr. Basu submits before this Court that the writ petitioners were compelled to file CAN 1 of 2017 since despite filing of the instant writ petition, the respondent authorities more specifically the respondent nos. 3 and 4/Authorities insisted for payment of Rs. 7, 27,561/- pursuant to their Memo dated 6 06.06.2014 which is impugned in the instant writ petition. 19. It is further submitted by Mr. Basu that by filing CAN 2 of 2018 the writ petitioners have prayed for allowing the writ petitioners to operate the said kiln for the year 2018-2019 upon payment of royalty of brickearth. 20. In support of CAN 3 of 2019, Mr. Basu further draws attention of this Court to page nos.94 and 95 of the said CAN whereby and whereunder the respondent nos.3 and 4/Authorities have demanded Rs.43,70,815/- for the period of usage of the said kiln for the years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 in terms of the interim order dated 26.09.2019, whereby and whereunder a co-ordinate Bench directed the writ petitioners to pay the arrear charges and current charges as per demand of the respondents on year to year basis. 21. Mr. Basu submits that by filing CAN 3 of 2019, the writ petitioners were compelled to challenge the said demand vide Memo dated 22.10.2019, since the respondent no.3/Authority calculated the said amount of Rs.43,70,815/- on the basis of the impugned Memo dated 06.06.2014 and not in terms of the agreement dated 08.05.2013. 22. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that on conjoined perusal of the entire materials as placed before this 7 Court, it would reveal that the demand as made by the respondent nos. 3 and 4/Authorities vide Memo dated 06.06.2014, has got no basis at all, since such demand runs contrary to the agreement dated 08.05.2013 as has been entered into between the writ petitioners and the respondent no.3/Authority and, therefore, the subsequent demands made by the respondent no.3 and 4/Authorities which are also impugned in the aforesaid three interlocutory applications are required to be interfered with. 23. Per contra, Mr. Dutta for the State in course of his submission, took me to the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the respondent no.3 and as has been affirmed on 03.02.2021. It is argued by Mr. Dutta that in paragraph 3(c), (d) and (f) of the said affidavit-in-opposition it has been specifically averred by the respondent nos. 3 and 4/Authorities that the impugned demand dated 06.06.2014, was made pursuant to the Memo dated 28.10.2013, a copy of which has been annexed at page no.46 of the affidavit-in-opposition wherefrom it would reveal that the respondents/State has taken a policy decision not to renew a contract for production of brick at the kiln in question. 24. It is further submitted by Mr. Dutta that it is further specific case of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 that the respondents/State has also decided to enhance the rate of usage charges at the 8 government brick field at the rate of Rs.7,27,561/-, initially for one year 2013-2014 and thereafter for four renewal periods with 15% increase in each subsequent year. 25. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Dutta that pursuant to such policy decision, the impugned Memo dated 06.06.2014 was issued. 26. It is further argued by Mr. Dutta that since the respondent/State has taken a policy decision for the welfare of the State, such action of the respondent/State cannot be questioned in a writ petition. 27. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing for the contending parties, it appears to this Court that sufficient materials have been placed before this Court that the writ petitioners and the respondent nos. 3 and 4/Authorities have entered into an agreement dated 08.06.2013 for operation of a brick field in the kiln in question initially for a period of one year subject to payment of Rs.4,96,933 which would be renewable from year to year but not more than five years on condition that for each year’s renewal 10% escalation cost would be imposed. 28. In considered view of this Court, when the writ petitioners and the respondent nos.3 and 4/Authorities have entered into a valid contract, 9 during the subsistence and validity period of the said agreement the respondent nos.3 and 4/Authorities cannot claim any further amount except the amount as agreed upon by and between the parties. 29. In view of such, this Court holds that the impugned Memo dated 06.06.2014 is unreasonable and unjust and de-hors to the law and the same cannot be sustained and, accordingly, the same is set aside. 30. At this juncture, Mr. Basu submits before this Court that pursuant to the issuance of the Memo dated 27.09.2013, the writ petitioners could not operate the brick field activity in the year 2013- 2014. 31. However, pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench, such activity was carried on in 2014-2015 and 2016-2017 except 2015-2016. Such contention is however disputed by Mr. Dutta by saying that the writ petitioners have carried out the brick field activity for the years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, 2016-2017. 32. It is further submitted by Mr. Dutta that the brick field activity was carried out till 2020. 33. This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot decide such disputed question of facts in absence of any cogent materials. However, this Court while disposing of the instant writ petition directs that 10 the respondent no.3 and 4/Authorities are entitled to recover usage charge of the said kiln in terms of the agreement dated 08.05.2013 for the year 2014- 2015 and 2016-2017, if not done in the mean time. 34. This Court further holds that in the event the respondent nos. 3 and 4/Authority finds the writ petitioners carried out brick field activity in the year 2015 and 2016 also, they are at best entitled to recover the usage charge in terms of the agreement dated 08.05.2013 by initiating appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum. 35. Since it has been strenuously contended by Mr. Dutta that the writ petitioners on account of pendency of the instant writ petition carried out the brick field activity in the aforesaid kiln till 2020, the respondent nos.3 and 4/Authorities are entitled to recover the usage charges in terms of the impugned Memo dated 06.06.2015 by initiating appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum. 36. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. 37. Consequently, CAN 2 of 2018 (old no. CAN 7573 of 2018), which is an application for stay has now become redundant and the same is also disposed of treating the same as on day’s list. 11 38. Consequently, CAN 1 of 2017 (old no. CAN 12226 of 2017) which is also an application for stay of the operation of some notices has now become redundant and the same is also disposed of. 39. Since in CAN 3 of 2019 (old no. CAN 10803 of 2019) the claim of the respondent no.3 and 4/Authorities to the tune of Rs.43,70,815/- vide Memo dated 22.10.2019 is impugned for the period of usage of 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, CAN 3 of 2319 is also disposed of by setting aside the impugned Memo dated 22.10.2019 in view of the observations made hereinabove reserving a right to the respondent nos.3 and 4/Authorities to make their demand for the respective years for the alleged non-payment in terms of the direction as passed hereinabove. 40. With the disposal of the instant writ petition, the interim order of stay as passed by this Court stands vacated. 41. Leave is granted to the writ petitioners to take out the machineries if there be any in the said kiln within ten working days from date after giving prior notice to the respondent nos. 3 and 4/Authorities. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 authorities are entitled to take possession of the said kiln soon thereafter. 42. Learned Registrar General of this High Court is directed to disburse the money as deposited by the 12 writ petitioners to the credit of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 authorities with accrued interest thereon within a period of fifteen days by issuing an Account Payee Cheque in the name of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 authorities. 43. With the disposal of the instant writ petition, all pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of. 44. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)