Dr.R.Thulasidasan v. Shri.V.K.M. Mohammed Miskin And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/71/2024 IA No.CAN/1/2025, CAN/2/2025, CAN/3/2025 With MAT/72/2024 IA No.CAN/1/2025 Dr. R. Thulasidasan Vs.

Shri V.K. M Mohammed Miskin and others Mr. S. Samanta Mr. V. Narayan ...for the appellant Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the respondent no.1 Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the respondent nos.2&3 Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondent no.4 August 01, 2025 [SR] Item Nos.6 & 7 The appeals are directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Bench on November 14, 2024 and November 18, 2024 in WPA/625/2024. By the first order, the learned Court directed eviction of the 4th respondent/appellant from the land in question and demolition of the unauthorised construction of a hotel raised therein. By the second order, the earlier order was modified to the extent that the hotel was directed to remain sealed but the demolition order was stayed till the disposal of the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he was not able to appear before the learned writ court initially for which he was not able to raise the maintainability issue before the said learned Court. Placing reliance on the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench in MA/5/2023 on March 21,

2023, learned counsel submits that since the petitioner in the writ petition is in no way connected with the property in question and there is no infringement of his legal rights in the issue, he has no locus standi to file the writ petition or challenge the allegedly unauthorized construction/occupation of the appellant.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the demolition order has already been passed by the authority on 17th August, 2012 pursuant to a newspaper publication by the government directing removal of unauthorized occupation of government land and requesting the citizens/people at large to report such encroachment before the authority We have considered the material on record. The primary grievance of the appellant is that the writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, the orders impugned could not have been passed by the learned Single Bench. It appears that the appellant appeared before the learned Single Bench on 18th November, 2024 and yet did not choose to raise the issue of maintainability of the writ petition.

However, since the appellant seeks to raise such issue and further submits that the orders impugned are bad in law since the writ petition is not maintainable at all, we are of the view that the appellant ought to be granted an opportunity to raise the issue of maintainability of the writ petition before the learned Single Bench when the matter is taken up by the said learned Bench.

Accordingly, the appellant is granted liberty to raise the issue of maintainability of the writ petition and contest other issues raised therein before the learned Single Bench and also to use affidavit in opposition therein, if required. Such application/affidavit be filed by the appellant before the learned Single Bench within three weeks from date. The petitioner/other respondents therein shall be at liberty to use a reply to the said application/affidavit, if required, within a week from filing of the same.

The appeals and all connected applications are accordingly disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the learned Single Bench shall deal with the entire matter on the issue of maintainability as well as on merits, in accordance with law.

( Suvra Ghosh, J.) ( Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. )