D/L18 29.09.2026 Bpg. WPA No.21273 of 2026 Bhagwandas Vehicles Test Service Private Limited Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ayan Banerjee Mr. Ayan Dutta Mr. Rajib Mullick Ms. Priyanka Barik. …for the petitioner. Mr. Sauvik Nandy Mr. Joy Ranjan Dhar. …for the State. Mr. Rupak Ghosh Ms. Debdutta Roy Choudhury. …for the respondent no.4. Ms. Debjani Sengupta Ms. D. Agarwal. …for the sub-tenants/sub-licensee of the petitioner. 1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the order dated 31.07.2026 as passed by the Commissioner, Presidency Division in an appeal under Section 7 of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 (‘the said Act’ in short). 2. By the impugned order dated 31.07.2026 the said Commissioner while admitting the appeal as preferred by the writ petitioner challenging the 2 order dated 15/25.05.2025 as passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24- Parganas in a proceeding under Section 3 of the said Act was pleased to admit the appeal, however refused to pass any order of stay in respect of the impugned order dated 15/25.05.2025 as passed by the jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Magistrate. By the selfsame order, the said Appellate Authority allowed the respondent no.4’s application for addition of party being the Sports Department of the Government of West Bengal. 3. At the time of hearing Mr. Banerjeee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos.220 to 226 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the order dated 16.02.2026 as passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 18846 of 2025 (Bhagwandas Vehicles Test Service Private Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) It is argued by Mr. Banerjee that on perusal of paragraph no.16 of the said order dated 16.02.2026, it would reveal that the said co- ordinate Bench while disposing of the said writ petition permitted the respondent no.4 authority herein to make appropriate request for addition of party before the Appellate Authority, that is, the 3 said Commissioner wherein the present writ petitioner was also permitted to take objection to such application for addition of party. 4. Drawing attention to the impugned order as involved in the instant writ petition, it is argued by Mr. Banerjee that on perusal of the order impugned, it would reveal that the said Appellate Authority in the said appeal as preferred by the writ petitioner under Section 6 of the said Act most unilaterally allowed the prayer for addition of party at the instance of the respondent no.4 without giving any opportunity to submit their objection regarding the prayer for addition of party. It is, thus, submitted that the order impugned categorically shows violation of the order dated 16.02.2026 as passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5. It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that the said Appellate Authority being the jurisdictional Commissioner has failed to visualise that in the event in the said appeal the stay order as prayed for is not granted, the jurisdictional sub-Divisional Magistrate shall execute the order dated 15/25.05.2025 and, in that event, the very purpose of filing the said appeal before the jurisdictional Commissioner would become infructous. It is, thus, 4 submitted by Mr. Banerjee that it is a fit case for grant of appropriate relief as prayed for on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4 authority at the very outset raises the point of maintainability of the instant writ petition. 7. Drawing attention to Section 7(2) of the said Act, it is argued by Mr. Ghosh that an order passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority under Section 7(1) can be impugned under Section 7(2) before the State body. On being asked by this Court, Mr. Ghosh, however, could not apprise this Court as to who is the appropriate authority in terms of Section 7(2) of the said Act. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh before this Court that the said Appellate authority is perfectly justified in refusing the prayer for stay as made by the writ petitioner inasmuch as the interest of the writ petitioner in respect of the property-in- question as involved in the said appeal is well protected by the order of an Arbitral Tribunal. In this regard, Mr. Ghosh draws attention of this Court to page no.104 of the instant writ petition being the copy of the minutes dated 05.01.2025 of the Arbitral Tribunal. 5 9. It is further argued by Mr. Ghosh that before the Appellate Authority sufficient materials have been placed before this Court that the property-in- question as involved in the said appeal actually belongs to the Sports Department of the Government of West Bengal and, therefore, an innocuous prayer has been made by the respondent no.4 for addition of the Sports Department of the Government of West Bengal in the said appeal in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and proceedings. 10. Mr. Nandy, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-State supports the contention of Mr. Ghosh. 11. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing learned advocates for the contending parties, it appears to this Court that the instant writ petition can be disposed of without exchange of affidavits for the reason stated hereunder. 12. In order to decide the point of maintainability, this Court finds some substance in the submission of Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.4 inasmuch as the provision of Section 7(2) of the said Act clearly mandates that the State Government may on its own motion or on 6 an application made by any person aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Authority may call for and examine of the record of the appeal and may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. 13. It appears to this Court that an order passed by an Appellate Authority under Section 7(1) of the said Act can be tested before the State Government. However, in course of hearing neither Mr. Ghosh nor Mr. Nandy, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.4 and learned senior advocate for the respondent-State could not apprise this Court as to who is the appropriate authority of the State Government before whom the present writ petitioner can approach by filing an appropriate application under Section 7(2) of the said Act. It thus appears to this Court that a litigant cannot be remediless on account of absence of forum. 14. In view of such, this Court holds that the instant writ petition is maintainable. 15. Coming to the factual aspect of this case, it appears to this Court that while passing the impugned order dated 31.07.2026 the jurisdictional Commissioner while admitting the appeal under Section 7 of the said Act refused to grant stay as prayed for by the appellant. 7 16. This Court has meticulously gone through the impugned order dated 31.07.2026. It appears to this Court that the said authority being the jurisdictional Commissioner has not assigned a single reason for rejecting the prayer for stay. This Court is conscious that in the event the Appellate Authority is not inclined to pass any order of stay that may ruin the appeal since in absence of any order of stay, the order impugned before the Appellate Authority becomes executable. 17. In course of hearing Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.4 authority though contended that the interest of the writ petitioner in respect of the property-in- question as involved in the instant writ petition is well protected by the order of the Arbitral Tribunal, however, this Court is in respect of full disagreement with the submission of Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the respondent no.4 inasmuch as the order dated 15/25.05.2025 as passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas cannot be a subject matter of dispute and/or reference before the Arbitral Tribunal. 18. This Court also noticed that a co-ordinate Bench while disposing WPA 18846 of 2025 by an order dated 16.02.2026 categorically observed that the 8 Appellate Authority would consider the application for addition of party at the instance of the present respondent no.4, however, the writ petitioner is entitled to take objection of the same. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Banerjee that while passing the impugned order and while allowing the application for addition of party, the jurisdictional Commissioner even prior to the admission of the appeal, allowed the prayer of the present respondent no.4 without giving any opportunity of hearing and/or without giving any opportunity to file written objection/affidavit-in-opposition to the appellant herein. 19. It, thus, appears to this Court that the order impugned in the instant writ petition is suffering from patent illegality and is, thus, required to be interfered with in judicial review. 20. It appears to this Court that the Commissioner, President Division ought to have passed an order of stay in respect of the impugned order before him till disposal of the appeal as otherwise the very purpose of filing the said appeal would become infrucutous. 21. In view of such, let therebe stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 15/25.05.2025 as passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 9 Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas till disposal of the said appeal before the Commissioner, Presidency Division. 22. The order for addition of party as contained in the impugned order is hereby set aside. 23. Liberty is given to the present writ petitioner to file their written objection/affidavit-in-opposition against the petition for addition of party as filed by the present respondent no.4 positively within 10 working days from today before the Commissioner, Presidency Division failing which right to file written objection/affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition would be forfeited. 24. The commissioner, Presidency Division is further directed to fix a date of hearing of application for addition of party as made by the respondent no.4 herein afresh. The said Commissioner shall dispose of the said application for addition of party after giving due chance of hearing both to the appellant as well as the respondent who has filed that application without granting any adjournment to either parties and a reasoned order is to be passed by the Commissioner in respect of the said application for addition of party within 30 working days from the date of the communication of the server copy of this order. 10 25. Before parting with, this Court further directs the Commissioner, Presidency Division to dispose of the appeal after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders positively within 60 working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order. 26. With the aforementioned observation, WPA 21273 of 2026 is disposed of. 27. There will be no order as to costs. 28. Urgent photostaty certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)