30 2299..0099..22002266 Ct. No. 05 adeb WPA 25127 of 2026 Mr. Jayanta Paul Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Soumen Kumar Dutta Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharjee Mr. Juthika Barman Mr. Sudip Roy …for the petitioner Mr. Rajdeep Mantha Ms. Subhanwita Ghosh …for the State Mr. Debasish Sinha Ms. Sharmistha Dhar Mr. Rishav Roy …for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. By presenting this writ petition prayer is made for implementation of order dated 24th July, 2025 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, First Court of District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas. 3. Mr. Dutta, learned advocate representing petitioner submits that petitioner is owner of building situates under the jurisdiction of Gariahat Police Station. After entering into an agreement with respondent nos. 5 and 6 petitioner permitted respondent nos. 5 and 6 to put up hoarding at the top of said building. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that after 2 expiry of period mentioned in the agreement respondent nos. 5 and 6 did not remove hoarding prompting the petitioner to approach learned Executive Magistrate under Section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’). Reliance is placed on the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate on 24th July, 2025 and it is submitted that in terms of said order by this time respondent nos. 5 and 6 should have removed such hoarding. 4. State respondents and respondent nos. 5 and 6 are represented by learned advocates. 5. Having considered the case made out in this writ petition it appears that petitioner has prayed for implementation of order of Executive Magistrate dated 24th July, 2025. Section 133(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. provides that Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government, on receiving report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence as he thinks fit can consider removal of unlawful obstruction or nuisance from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by public. Similarly Section 133(1)(d) as it is relied upon on behalf of petitioner provides that Executive Magistrate can also consider removal, repair or 3 support of any building, tent or structure or any tree if it is found that condition of the same is such that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passurs by. 6. However, taking note of submissions made on behalf of petitioner it transpires that by entering into an agreement petitioner being house owner permitted private respondents to put up hoarding at the top of said building and there is nothing on record based on which it can be inferred that removal of any obstruction or nuisance is necessary for safeguarding of neighbours and passersby. 7. Hoarding which existed at particular place cannot be termed as nuisance after expiry of period stated in the contract. Moreover, order was passed by the learned Executive Magistrate on 24th July, 2025 whereas writ petition was filed on 9th September, 2026 seeking removal of hoarding. 8. Writ Court is not an Executing Court for giving effect to the order passed by Executive Magistrate in proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. 9. In view of aforesaid consideration present writ petition is not entertained and same stands dismissed. 4 10. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law, if so advised. 11. Parties to act on server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)