Calcutta High Court
WPA/17937/2026 of MAHANAD MATSYA UTPADAK SANSTHA SAMABAY SAMITY LTD Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 5 October 2026
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
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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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.)