Ruya Bhattacharyya v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

13.02.2025 Item No.18 gd/ssd WPA(P)/525/2024 RUYA BHATTACHARYYA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Pradip Kumar Kundu, Mr. Kingsuk Mondal, Ms. Shakshi Rathi ..for the Petitioner.

Mr. Jahar Lal De ..for the State.

Mr. Arjun Ray Mukherjee ..for the Respondent No.4.

Mr. Habibur Rahaman, Mr. Moidul Islam Khayal, Mr. Nurul Amin Sardar, Mr. Sumit Naskar, Mr. Archishman Singh ..for the Private Respondents.

1. By this public interest writ petition the petitioner alleges that the private respondents have put up illegal construction, encroached into a road, encroached into a water body etc.

2. However, from the averments made in the writ petition we find that the averments to be very vague. 3.

The learned advocate for the private respondents submitted that the writ petitioner is not a bonafide public interest litigation but there is a vested

interest since the petitioner is canvassing the case of another person against whom the private respondents have lodged a complaint before the municipality and the municipality issued stop work notice to the said person.

4.

Be that as it may, we find that a representation has been made to the authorities by the writ petitioner making certain allegations, which is said to be sent by speed post.

5. On going through the representation we find that the petitioner has addressed 16 authorities and is not clear as to which the appropriate authority has to take appropriate action.

6. Therefore, based on such representation, we cannot issue any direction even for consideration of the representation.

7. Therefore, we dispose of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to give a comprehensive representation containing full details duly supported documents to the appropriate authority who is required to take action and the petitioner should appear in person before the said authority and place the representation. On receiving the representation, the authority shall examine the same and if a case is made out for conducting inspection, he may do so after notice to the private respondents and proceed to take action in accordance with law.

8. With the above observations, the matter stands disposed of.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.)