IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Ct.19 05.10.26 Item No.19 Sws.M WPA 17937 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 Mahanad Matsya Utpadak Sanstha Samabay Samity Ltd. Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Abhishek Sikdar Ms. Sahili Dey …for the petitioner Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee Mr. Sailen Naskar …for the State Mr. Sudip Das …for the respondent No. 4 1. The parties to the instant writ petition are represented by their respective advocates. 2. At the time of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of writ petitioner submits before this Court that in the instant writ petition the impugned Memo is dated 15.07.2026, whereby and whereunder the jurisdictional BL & LRO directed the writ petitioner to stop all kind of business in the waterbody as involved in the instant writ petition since the validity of the lease agreement has expired. 3. On being repeatedly asked by this Court that under which provision of law the writ petitioner is entitled to carry on business and/or manage the waterbody beyond the lease period, learned advocate appearing 2 on behalf of the writ petitioner either by this way or that way avoided the question as put in by this Court. 4. Considering the conduct of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case as involved in the instant writ petition, this Court is inclined to hold that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. 5. With the aforementioned observations, the writ petition along with the connected application is dismissed. (Partha Sarathi Sen , J.)