Calcutta High Court
WPA(P)/344/2026 of PARESH RAM DAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 20 July 2026
Item No.09 Court No.01 KCP WPA(P) 344 of 2026 Sri Paresh Ram Das - Versus - State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee Mr. Pintu Karar Mr. Prabir Mondol Mr. R. Ahmad Khan …. For the Petitioner Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Ld. A.A.G. Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Mr. Sunny Nandy
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.
20.07.2026 Item No.09 Court No.01 KCP WPA(P) 344 of 2026
Sri Paresh Ram Das
- Versus - State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee Mr. Pintu Karar Mr. Prabir Mondol Mr. R. Ahmad Khan …. For the Petitioner Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Ld. A.A.G. Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Mr. Sunny Nandy …. For the State
Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that a passenger waiting shed named ‘Nirapad Ashray’ was constructed at Canning Hospital More within the Canning Paschim Assembly Constituency, out of MPLAD funds and MLA (Local Area Development) funds, exclusively for the benefit, comfort and convenience of the general commuting public. The said structure was raised entirely out of public funds for a specific public purpose. However, the said passenger waiting shed has now been illegally occupied by one Arnab Roy, worker of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who has converted the said public structure into a de facto political party office. Stating such facts, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner before the respondent no.3 on 11th May, 2026. However, the same has not been responded to
2 and as such, the petitioner was constrained to prefer the instant Public Interest Litigation (in short, PIL). Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has no objection, in the event, the said representation is relegated to the said respondent no.3 for consideration. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.3 to consider the representation dated 11th May, 2026 submitted by the petitioner, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the private respondents and other interested parties, if any, and to take a decision in accordance with law. Such decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order along with a copy of the writ petition. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s claim and all points are kept open to be considered by the respondent no.3. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)