Nimai Chandra Bej vs State Of West Bengal And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4985 Cal

D/L. 67.
August 11, 2023.
MNS.


                                     WPA No. 27468 of 2022
                                              +
                                        CAN 1 of 2023

                                        Nimai Chandra Bej
                                               Vs.
                                 State of West Bengal and others

                            Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta,
                            Mr. Sanat Kumar Roy,
                            Mr. Abhishek Banerjee

                                            ... for the petitioner.

                            Mr. Amitesh Banerjee,
                            Mr. Tarak Karan

                                           ...for the State.

                            Learned counsel for the petitioner presses

                   the interim application, despite no interim order

                   having been passed at the initial stage when the

                   writ petition was first moved as 'motion' before a

                   co-ordinate Bench.

                            Subsequent to the writ petition being first

                   entertained, the respondent authorities have

issued a work-order in favour of respondent no. 4,

thereby furnishing change of circumstances, to

justify making the instant application before this

Court.

It is submitted that by the said action, the

respondent authorities have sought to render the

writ petition infructuous.

Accordingly, an injunction is sought

restraining the respondents from proceeding with

the constructional work of a 100-bedded Covid

Hospital at Ranaghat and from making payment

of any bill in respect of the said constructional

work in favour of the respondent no. 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the

respondent authorities submits that since there

was no interim order of restraint, the work-order

was issued keeping in view the implicit urgency in

the work.

In any event, it is submitted that the writ

petition itself be decided on merits, since any

interim order at this stage would virtually stop the

work, which is progressing since February, 2023.

Keeping in view the balance of

convenience and inconvenience as well as the

fact that the work-in-question is for public interest,

this Court chooses not to grant any injunction at

this stage.

In any event, the work-order, which has

been issued during pendency of the writ petition,

shall be subject to the outcome of the writ

petition.

Although the petitioner is justified in

submitting that there has been a change of

circumstance from the previous date when the

writ petition was initially entertained, if any interim

order is granted at this stage, the balance of

convenience and inconvenience will palpably tilt

against public interest, which has been

deprecated time and again by the Supreme Court

and several High Courts in their judgments.

In any event, since the work has been

proceeded with for at least six months after the

issuance of the work-order, any interdiction at the

behest of this Court at his belated juncture would

only be to the detriment to the prospective

patients of the hospital proposed to be

constructed.

However, since the petitioner has pleaded

urgency in view of issuance of work-order during

pendency of the writ petition, the writ petition itself

shall be enlisted for hearing, fairly at the top of

the list, on August 17, 2023.

CAN 1 of 2023 is disposed of accordingly

without any order as to costs.

Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the

respondent nos. 2 and 3 to the supplementary

affidavit today be kept on record.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)