Calcutta High Court
WPA/16811/2026 of P C GHOSH AND CO. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 30 September 2026
COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Ct.19 30.09.26 Item No.24 Sws.M WPA 16811of 2026 P.C. Ghosh & Co. Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Shamik Chatterjee Mr. Souma Subhra Ray Mr. Arijit Roy Ms. Anushree Mondal Roy Ms. Neelam Kumari …for the
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Ct.19 30.09.26
Item No.24 Sws.M
WPA 16811of 2026
P.C. Ghosh & Co.
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Shamik Chatterjee
Mr. Souma Subhra Ray
Mr. Arijit Roy
Ms. Anushree Mondal Roy
Ms. Neelam Kumari
…for the petitioner
Mr. Souvik Nandy,
Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Roy
Mr. Ankur Sharma
…for the State
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 learned counsel.
2. The writ petitioner is aggrieved for non-consideration of his representation dated 13.05.2026 by the respondent No.2/authority whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner requested the respondent No. 2/authority to disburse a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- towards outstanding dues. It is thus submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioner in terms of the prayers made in the instant writ petition including the prayer for restraining the respondent/authority from any coercive action against the writ petitioner, till disposal of the said representation.
3. Such prayer is vehemently opposed by Mr. Nandy, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State. It is argued by Mr. Nandy that privity of contract between the writ petitioner and the respondent authority has come to an end. However, it is fairly submitted by Mr. Nandy that in the event this Court directs the respondent No. 2/authority to consider the representation dated 13.05.2026 in accordance with law, he has got no objection.
4. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing learned advocates for the contending parties, this Court while disposing the instant writ petition directs the respondent No. 2/authority to consider the representation dated 13.05.2026, as submitted by the writ petitioner in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the proprietor of the writ petitioner and/or his authorized representative, he shall pass a reasoned order and shall forthwith communicate the same to the writ petitioner preferably by e-mail, if the e-mail is provided to the respondent No.2/authority at the time of hearing.
5. The entire exercise, as indicated hereinabove shall have to be completed by the respondent No. 2/authority within 30 working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order.
6. The time limits as fixed by this Court are peremptory and mandatory.
7. Liberty is given to the learned advocate-on-record for the petitioner to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent No. 2/authority, who is directed to act on the server copy of this order.
8. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of.
9. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Sen , J.)