WPA/23358/2026 of MD RASHUL ALAM AND ANR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 23 September 2026

1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is a representation dated 15.07.2026 as submitted by the writ petitioners with the respondent authorities. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits before this Court that it is the modest prayer of the writ petitioners that an appropriate writ may be issued against the respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 15.07.2026 in accordance with law.

2. It is argued by Mr. Chatterjee that on perusal of copy of the said report dated 15.07.2026 it would reveal that it is the case of the writ petitioners that after taking a lease from Chatar MSS Limited, the present writ petitioners carried on pisciculture in the said waterbody and the respondent authorities by the strength of the order, as passed by this High Court in WPA 23 of 2026, make an attempt to discontinue the said pisciculture business at the said waterbody without considering the fact that the present writ petitioners have already invested huge amount for pisciculture in the said waterbody.

3. Per contra, Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State vehemently opposes the prayer. Drawing attention to second page of the said representation dated 15.07.2026, it is argued by Mr. Bhattacharjee that it is the specific direction of the Hon’ble Court in WPA

of

(Baluka Fishermen’s Cooperative Society Ltd. & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), upon the respondent authorities not to allow the existing lessee to carry on pisciculture at the said waterbody. At this juncture attention to the Court is drawn to page numbers 37 to 39 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the LOI dated 14.07.2017 as been issued in favour of Chatar MSS Limited whereby and whereunder the said waterbody was allotted to the said company on certain conditions, out of which Clause 3 and Clause 4 of LOI are very pertinent, which indicates that the lessee, that is, Chatar MSS Limited shall not allow anybody/any other fisherman society or any individual to carry on pisciculture on the said leased out area. It is argued by Mr. Bhattacharjee that the present writ petitioners having no right title and interest over the said waterbody seeks continuation of their pisciculture despite the order of prohibition by the Hon’ble Court, as passed in WPA 23 of 2026 wherein the present writ petitioners were the party-respondent and the said order has become final.

4. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court, it appears to this Court that the waterbody in question was allotted to the Chatar MSS Limited for carrying out business of pisciculture with a rider that the said cooperative society shall not allow any third party to carry on pisciculture activity by way of sub-lease. From the averments made in the instant writ petition it reveals that in utter violation of the said clauses of LOI dated 14.07.2017, a sub-lease was executed in favour of the writ petitioners. This Court has also noticed the order passed by this High Court in WPA 23 of 2026 whereby and whereunder the respondent authorities were prohibited from allowing the existing lessee to carry on the pisciculture.

5. Since the present writ petitioners are claiming their interest through the original allottee, who have been expressly prohibited to carry on pisciculture activity

on the said waterbody, the present writ petitioners being their unauthorized sub-lessee cannot claim any better right than their original lessee, that is the Chatar MSS Limited.

6. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

7. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

(Partha Sarathi Sen , J.)