Abdul Kader Molla v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

27.08.2025 Item No.23 Ct. No. 30 Aloke WPA 21307 of 2022 Abdul Kader Molla Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee Mr. Mainak Singha Barma Ms. Sunanda Chatterjee ...for the petitioner Mr. Chayan Gupta Mr. Aviroop Mitra ......for the WBHIDCO Ms. Sonal Sinha Ms. Shabnam Farooqui ...for NKDA/respondent no. 8 Mr. Saptangsu Basu, ld. Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sutapa Sanyal Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee Ms. Sushmita Chatterjee Ms. Sonia Das ...for respondent nos. 14 to 29 Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, ld Sr. adv.

Mr. Debjit Mukherjee Mr. Prantik Garai Ms. Priyanka Prasad Ms. Mobina Ali Ms. Priyanka Jana ...for respondent no. 30 Mr. Malay Singh Mr. Bibekananda Tripathy ... for the State Ms. Soni Ojha Ms. Sambrita B. Chatterjee ... for the respondent no. 13 1.

The writ application has been preferred challenging the Sanctioned Plan vide Memo No. 965/RPS dated 24th June, 2020 sanctioned in favour of the respondent company and the No Objection Certificates and approval thereto duly

issued in favaour of the private respondent and other companies. The petitioner has further prayed for related reliefs.

Written notes have been filed by the leaned counsel for the petitioner.

3.

On hearing the parties, it appears that a representation dated 06.04.2022 was filed by the writ petitioner before all the authorities concerned but as there has been total inaction on the part of the authorities concerned, the petitioner has preferred the writ application.

4.

On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the materials on record, the writ application is disposed of with the direction that the respondent nos. 10 and 11 shall consider the representation dated 06.04.2022 filed by the petitioner, on hearing all the parties concerned and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, preferably within 60 days from the date of communication of this order.

5.

In case the copy of the representation is not available with the said respondents, the petitioner is at liberty to file a copy of the same with the said authorities who shall act on the said copy as directed in this order.

6.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of this case.

7.

The writ application stands disposed of.

8. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of.

9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)