Sl.52 30.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 3484 of 2026 IMC Limited -versus- Board of Major Port Authority of Syama Prasad Mookherjee Port, Kolkata Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta Mr. Sushovit Dutt Ms. Mini Agarwal Ms. Sirin Firdous ..for the petitioner Mr. Subhankar Nag Ms. Antalina Guha Ms. Trishita Ghosh Ms. Shinjita Ray ..for the Kolkata Port Trust This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an unauthorised occupant and is directed against an order dated September 24, 2026 passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. By the order impugned the parties were directed to submit their evidences within 30th September, 2025 and also to file their written notes of argument within that time and the date has been fixed for passing final order. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the manner in which the Estate Officer is proceeding amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the 2 petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to advance their oral arguments. Mr. Nag, learned advocate appearing for the Syama Prasad Mookherjee Port, Kolkata seriously disputes the aforesaid submission of Mr. Chatterjee. He submits that the parties have been afforded an opportunity to produce their evidence by the Estate Officer. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. Section 8 of the 1971 Act states that an estate officer shall, for the purpose of holding any inquiry under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of documents and any other matter which may be prescribed. Rule 5 (1) of the 1971 Rules states that where any person on whom a notice or order under this Act has been served desires to be heard through his representative he should authorize such representative in writing. Rule 5(2) states that the Estate Officer shall record the summary of the evidence tendered before him. The summary of such evidence and any relevant documents filed before him shall form part of the records of the proceedings. Thus, upon a conjoint reading of Section 8 of the 1971 Act and Rule 5 of the 1971 Rules this Court finds 3 that the provisions of the 1971 Act and the rules framed there under has not been followed by the estate officer while passing the order dated 24th September, 2023. Accordingly the order dated 24th September, 2023 is set aside. The Estate Officer is directed to proceed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 1971 Act and the rules framed thereunder. At this stage, Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the authorized representative of the petitioner is not being allowed to appear in this matter through virtual mode. He further submits that the issues are yet to be framed. It will be open to the petitioner to draw the attention of the estate officer with regard to such fact and if such an approach is made the estate officer shall consider the same and proceed in accordance with law. With the above observations and directions, C.O. 3484 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)