K.Ganeshan v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/515/2025 K. Ganeshan Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and another Mr. Mohammed Tabraiz ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents November 7, 2025 [SR] Item No. 8 Disputed questions of facts have arisen, which cannot be decided by a writ Court.

This Court is of the view that the factual background, coupled with the issues raised by Mr. Tabraiz, learned advocate for the petitioner and the reliefs which were prayed for by the petitioner in the civil suit, require consideration of the matter on merits by an appropriate authority of the Administration. Mr. Tabraiz submits that the petitioner operated a workshop. Similarly situated persons, like the petitioner, were given an alternative land at Dollygunj and they were also operating from the Foreshore road, Haddo. Whereas sometime in 2025, the petitioner was evicted from Foreshore Road, Haddo, without grant of an alternate land.

Ms. Babita Das, learned advocate for the respondents submits that similar issue had been raised by the petitioner in a civil suit. The petitioner was unsuccessful in obtaining any stay and/or injunction and hence, has approached this Court with unclean hands.

The writ petition discloses a representation of the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, Sri Vijaya Puram with a request for allotment of a suitable accommodation in the Industrial Estate. Without making any observations on the merits of the claim of the petitioner or the allegations leveled against the Administration, this Court disposes the writ petition with a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District to dispose of the representation of the petitioner , which appears at page 51, Annexure P-7, in accordance with law, upon hearing the petitioner and upon considering all the issues on merits.

If it is found that the similarly situated persons were given alternative land, but the petitioner was deprived, in that event, steps should be taken to treat the petitioner at par with those allottees. However, if there is any reason for not granting any relief to the petitioner, reasons shall be disclosed and order shall be communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be heard. The petitioner shall be allowed to produce the document and merits in support of the claim.

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Parties to act in terms of the server copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Hon'ble Court. ( Shampa Sarkar, J. )