Calcutta High Court
WPA/17333/2026 of ARUN KUMAR DAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 28 July 2026
of 2026 A.Roy, J. Form J(2) Sl.No. 5 Moumita In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy WPA 17333 of 2026 Arun Kumar Das Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. For the Petitioner :Mr. Debasis Sur, Adv. Mr. Ashok
A.Roy, J.
Form J(2)
Sl.No. 5
Moumita
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy
WPA 17333 of 2026
Arun Kumar Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
For the Petitioner
:Mr. Debasis Sur, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Ghosh, Adv.
For the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7
:Ms. Deblina Lahiri, Adv.
Mr. Mrinmoy Chatterjee, Adv.
For the State-respondent
:Mr. Tapas Kr. Sil, Adv.
Mr. Biplab Ranjan Bose, Adv.
Heard on
: July 28, 2026
Judgment on
: July 28, 2026
[In Court]
Aniruddha Roy, J. :
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. Since the Regular determination has been assigned before this Court, considering the urgency involved in the writ petition, the same has been taken up for consideration.
2. Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today, is taken on record.
A.Roy, J.
3. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging an alleged notice for eviction/for vacating the university property dated July 13, 2026 at page 63 to the writ petition.
4. Mr. Debasis Sur, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, on the face of it notice would show that, the provisions of the statute under which it has been issued is not mentioned. Inasmuch as, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to defend the said notice.
5. Ms. Deblina Lahiri, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 7/the concerned university submits that, this is not really a notice for eviction under any provision of law but it can be treated as a notice for caution.
6. In view of the above, this Court directs that, no coercive step shall be taken on the basis of the said impugned notice dated July 13, 2026.
7. However, the respondent nos. 5 to 7 shall be at liberty to proceed in due process of law against the petitioner by invoking the appropriate provisions of law.
8. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions of the parties touching the land. All points shall be kept open for the parties to canvas at the appropriate stage, if any.
9. Since affidavits are not called for the allegations made in this writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
A.Roy, J.
10. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition WPA 17333 of 2026 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.
11. Parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Aniruddha Roy, J.)