Authority: Calcutta High Court

Order Date: August 1, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Sanchem Paints Private Limited (formerly Sanchem Industries Private Limited and Sanchem Plastics Private Limited); Respondent No. 1 – State of West Bengal; Respondent No. 2 – Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, West Bengal; Private Respondents No. 3 and No. 4 – unnamed private parties.
  • Background: A lease deed dated May 31, 2000 was executed by Respondents 1 and 2 (joint lessors) in favour of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner, initially as Sanchem Industries Private Limited, later renamed Sanchem Plastics Private Limited and finally Sanchem Paints Private Limited. The name changes were accepted after payment of requisite fees to the respondents.
  • Petitioner’s Allegations: The petitioner contended that a third party had been inducted at some point but that no subsisting right existed in favour of that third party at present. The petitioner filed writ petition WPA 17140 of 2026 seeking a mandamus to quash two letters issued by Respondent 2 – a clarification notice dated March 25, 2026 and a Show‑Cause notice dated April 20, 2026.
  • Procedural History: The petitioner replied to the March 25 notice on April 1, 2026; Respondent 2 issued the Show‑Cause notice on April 20, 2026; the petitioner replied to the Show‑Cause notice on May 20, 2026. Both respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, particularly prayer ‘b’, and argued that the challenge to the Show‑Cause notice was not maintainable.
  • Court’s Observations: The Court held that Respondent 2, being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, must dispose of the petitioner’s objections with a speaking order in accordance with law.

Final Outcome

  • Directions:

(a) The Chief Executive Officer of Respondent 2, after issuing a three‑day prior notice to the petitioner, Principal Secretary (Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs), and Private Respondents 3 and 4, shall conduct a physical inspection of the disputed land to ascertain whether Private Respondents 3 and 4 are in existence, possession, or occupying any portion of the land, and shall prepare a report.

(b) The inspection report shall be forwarded to the petitioner, the Principal Secretary, and Private Respondents 3 and 4 within three days of the inspection.

(c) The CEO of Respondent 2 shall, after issuing three‑day prior notice to the petitioner, the Principal Secretary, and Private Respondents 3 and 4, and after affording them a hearing, dispose of the petitioner’s replies dated April 1, 2026 and May 20, 2026 in light of the March 25 clarification notice and the April 20 Show‑Cause notice, as well as relevant records, and shall pass a reasoned order within four weeks of the hearing.

(d) Parties may refer to a copy of the writ petition during the hearing before the CEO.

(e) The reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner, the Principal Secretary, and Private Respondents 3 and 4 within two weeks of its issuance.

  • Clarifications: The order does not create any right or equity for any party. Private Respondents 3 and 4 will have no right or equity by virtue of participation in the inspection or hearing, as the parent lease is solely between Respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner.
  • Additional Observations: If the inspection confirms the presence of Private Respondents 3 and 4 in violation of the lease terms, the petitioner will be responsible for removing them, and Respondents 1 and 2 may take steps in accordance with law. No further or coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents until the CEO’s reasoned order is communicated.
  • Procedural Note: Any record not part of the writ petition that a party wishes to rely upon must be furnished to the other parties at least three days before the hearing.
  • The Court emphasized that the order does not create any right or equity concerning jurisdictional forums, even if the reasoned order is challenged.
  • Affidavits were not called for; the allegations in the writ petition are deemed not admitted by the respondents.
  • The writ petition WPA 17140 of 2026 is disposed of without any order as to costs. Parties may act based on the server copy of this order obtainable from the official website.

Topics: Court Order, Land Lease Dispute, Inspection Directive