N.22Sl 151/CL 28.09.26 DL-19 Ct.-19 (S.R.) WPA 18937 of 2026 Anisha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Engineer, Baguihati Highway Sub- Division & Ors. Mr. Arik Banerjee, Mr. Kunal Shaw Mr. Rajib Mullick Mr. Priyanka Barik Mr. N. Bhattacharya … for the petitioner. Mr. N. Bhattacharjee Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty … for the State. Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee Mr. S. Das … for the BMC. 1. This matter has been listed today under the heading for “Extension of Interim Order”. 2. On perusal of the impugned order dated 20.07.2026, it reveals that in a proceeding under Section 10(3) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (‘the said Act’, in short), the jurisdictional Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the said impugned order in view of the provision of Section 10(3) of the said Act. 3. On being asked by this Court, as to how the instant writ petition is maintainable before this Court despite availability of alternative suitable efficacious statutory remedy, the learned advocate appearing in virtual mode made an endeavour to convince this Court that in the impugned order, it has been specifically mentioned by the jurisdictional Sub- divisional Magistrate that the impugned order under Section 10(3) of the said Act is passed pursuant to an earlier order of the jurisdictional District Magistrate dated 28.04.2023. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that since the jurisdictional Sub- divisional Magistrate had passed the impugned order pursuant to the order of the jurisdictional District Magistrate, no fruitful purpose would be served, in the event, an appeal under Section 10(4) of the said Act is preferred. 5. This Court has meticulously gone through the impugned order, a copy of which has been annexed at page no.134. 6. On careful scrutiny of the said impugned order, this Court finds that while passing the impugned order, the jurisdictional Sub-divisional Magistrate made a reference regarding an earlier order dated 28.04.2023 as passed by the District Magistrate, North 24-parganas. 7. However, on perusal of the latter part of the said impugned order, it reveals that prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 20.07.2026, it reveals that it was reported to the said jurisdictional Sub- 2 divisional Magistrate that despite service of notice under Section 10(1) of the said Act regarding removal of encroachments, such encroachments were not removed and, as such, the jurisdictional Assistant Engineer made an application before the said jurisdictional Sub-divisional Magistrate and on such application, the said jurisdictional Sub- divisional Magistrate initiated a proceeding under Section 10(3) of the said Act whereof the impugned order has been passed. 8. At the time of hearing, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits before this Court that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that in the said proceeding under Section 10(3) of the said Act, the writ petitioner was not served with any notice. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that in such proceeding under Section 10(3), the principle of natural justice has been violated. 9. At this juncture, if I look to Section 10(4) of the said Act, it appears that it is the legislative mandate that, in the event, a person is at all aggrieved by an order under Section 10(3) of the said Act as passed by a jurisdictional Sub-divisional Magistrate, he has every liberty to prefer an appeal before the jurisdictional District Magistrate. It appears that no case has been made out on behalf of the writ 3 petitioner as to what prevented them to approach the appellate forum instead of invoking high prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Admittedly, an attempt was made on behalf of the writ petitioner that in the impugned order there is a reflection of the earlier order dated 28.04.2023 as passed by the District Magistrate, North 24- Parganas. This Court is in respectful disagreement with the submission of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner inasmuch as the mere mentioning of an earlier order of the jurisdictional District Magistrate does not invalidate the self-same jurisdictional District Magistrate to entertain an appeal as has been passed in a proceeding under Section 10(3) of the said Act. It further appears to this Court that the point regarding non-service of notice in a proceeding under Section 10(3) of the said Act can very well be taken before the jurisdictional District Magistrate in an appeal under Section 10(4) of the said Act. 11. In view of the aforementioned discussions, this Court is constrained to hold that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 13. Consequently, the interim order as passed earlier and as has been extended from time to time stands 4 hereby vacated. 14. Before parting with, it is, however, made clear that since the writ petitioner is pursuing his remedy in a wrong forum, this Court grants liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal before the jurisdictional District Magistrate within seven working days from today and, in the event, such an appeal is filed, the jurisdictional District Magistrate shall consider the said appeal within the period of limitation. 15. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) 5