Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 945 (CAL)

Upamanyu Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal

2025-12-23

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, SUJOY PAUL

body2025
JUDGMENT : SUJOY PAUL, ACJ. In Re: I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025 1. Parties are represented through their respective learned counsel. 2. In this public interest litigation, the petitioner has prayed for following relief: “a) A Writ of and/or Writs in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding the respondent nos. no.1 and 7 to 9 to provide the necessary NOC to RVNL for the traffic diversion at Chingrighata junction facilitate segment launching in the Orange Line Metro Route [Kavi Subhas (New Garia) to Jai Hind (Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Airport)], forthwith; b) A Writ of and/or Writs in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding the respondent authorities and each of them to complete the Orange Line Metro Route [Kavi Subhas (New Garia) to Jai Hind (Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Airport)] within six months or within such time, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper; c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondent authorities and each one of them, their men, agents, assigns and subordinates to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court the records of the case including any decision taken by the respondent nos. no.1 and 7 to 9 towards non-grant of NOC towards traffic diversion to facilitate segment launching in the Orange Line, so that conscionable justice may be administered by quashing the same; d) Rule NISI in terms of prayers above; e) An order be passed that a committee be formed headed by a Hon'ble Retired Judge of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to supervise the entire exercise for completion of the Orange Line Metro Route [Kavi Subhas (New Garia) to Jai Hind (Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Airport]; f) An order be passed directing the respondent nos. no.1 and 7 to 9 to provide the necessary NOC to RVNL for the traffic diversion at Chingrighata junction facilitate segment launching in the Orange Line Metro Route [Kavi Subhas (New Garia) to Jai Hind (Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Airport)], forthwith; g) Ad interim orders in terms of the prayers (e) and (f) above; h) Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given, as to this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.” 3. The grievance put forth by the petitioner on the earlier occasion was that the Metro rail project is functional between New Garia to Beliaghata stations. The grievance put forth by the petitioner on the earlier occasion was that the Metro rail project is functional between New Garia to Beliaghata stations. Three piers are to be erected in between covering a stretch of about 316 square metres. If these three piers are constructed, the track will reach upto Salt Lake Sector-V. Since the Metro rail is not getting NOC from the State Government/Traffic Police, the attention of this Court was drawn on this problem. 4. This Court on 04.09.2025 with the consent of parties, directed to hold a joint meeting of stakeholders on 09.09.2025 at 2.30 p.m. at Metro Rail Bhavan, Park Street, Kolkata. The learned counsel for respective parties provided the list of competent officers, who shall be attending the said meeting. The whole endeavour of the Court was to request the authorities of various departments to sit together and reach to a solution so that a project of great public interest can proceed at the earliest. 5. The authorities, in furtherance of the Court’s order sat together and an understanding was arrived at. The said understanding was produced before this Court and relevant portion was reproduced in the order-sheet dated 08.12.2025. The same is reproduced for ready reference: “After deliberation it was agreed that festival seasons may be avoided and dates for this work may be fixed in November, 2025. The State Govt. Officials proposed 2nd and 3rd weekends of November, 2025 for segment launching for pier No.317-318 & 318-319 respectively of Metro viaduct. These dates are agreed by both the parties. RVNL intimated that it will take around 9 months (September, 2026) to complete and commission the Beleghata to IT Centre Section subject to availability of traffic diversion provided in November, 2025. As a precursor the trial run has been jointly agreed upon to be conducted in the night of 13th September, 2025 with all the required infrastructure (One number fully functional traffic signal, blinkers and enhancement of illumination) as has been agreed upon earlier.” 6. By filing the instant CAN the petitioner brought it to the notice of this Court that despite the specific undertaking, the project could not proceed because NOC was not given and undertaking was not honoured. By filing the instant CAN the petitioner brought it to the notice of this Court that despite the specific undertaking, the project could not proceed because NOC was not given and undertaking was not honoured. In view of this CAN, the learned Advocate General and other parties were also heard on the last date of hearing and this Court thought it proper to direct different authorities to again sit together to resolve the problem. The same is recorded in the order dated 12.12.2025. Today, a joint minutes of meeting held on 17.12.2025 is produced before us. A plain reading of the minutes show that the police expressed its inability to provide weekend night traffic blocks upto 20.01.2026 in view of anticipated traffic surge during year-end festivities and Ganga Sagar Mela period. In Paragraph 4.3, it was recorded as under: “4.3. The Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, further informed that NOC for weekend night traffic blocks could not be granted during December, 2025 and upto 20th January, 2026, in view of anticipated traffic surge during year-end festivities and the Ganga Sagar Mela Period.” 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no reasons are assigned by the Government as to why the previous undertaking was not implemented by the Government authorities. The project is being delayed and there is no justification in not providing three nights for completion of erection of piers. 8. Learned Advocate General submits that PIL itself is not maintainable by placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714 and on the judgment of Patna High Court in Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2008 SCC OnLine Pat. 1403. Sri Datta, learned Advocate General urged that “PIL is not a pill for every ill.” For which period NOC can be granted is within the domain of experts. The Court cannot sit in appeal and decide the dates. 9. The petitioner of this PIL appears to be working at the instance of RVNIL, Metro rail. No element of public interest is involved in this. It is submitted that there is no illegality, irrationality or impropriety involved in the decision of the police authorities and therefore, no interference is warranted. 10. 9. The petitioner of this PIL appears to be working at the instance of RVNIL, Metro rail. No element of public interest is involved in this. It is submitted that there is no illegality, irrationality or impropriety involved in the decision of the police authorities and therefore, no interference is warranted. 10. Shri Sen, learned senior counsel for RVNL and Shri Ghosh, learned counsel for Metro rail have taken a common stand that the Metro project is functional between New Garia and Beliaghata. If these three piers are constructed, it will be connected upto Salt Lake Sector-V. In the result, the people will be able to use Metro rail facility between New Garia and Salt Lake Sector-V. It is denied that the present PIL is filed at the instance of RVNL, Metro rail. 11. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties except that the counsel for petitioner urged that this is not the first time for this Court to interfere in matter of this nature. Previously, on number of occasions, this Court had interfered in such matters and passed necessary interim orders. 12. We have heard the parties on this aspect at length. Since the question of maintainability is raised to the writ matter, we deem it proper to deal with this aspect at the earliest. We have gone through the prayer clause and the averments of the petition. We are unable to hold that this petition is filed for publicity or political interest. The matter is clearly in the realm of public interest. Needless to emphasise that if a project is sanctioned, it requires spending of huge amount of money. With the delay of project, not only people are deprived of the benefit arising out of such project, the cost gets escalated, which is ultimately, a burden on the State exchequer. Thus, we are unable to hold that this matter does not fall within the ambit of public interest litigation. 13. So far principle of law laid down in the judgments relied upon by learned Advocate General are concerned, there cannot be any quarrel on such principle. However, when we apply those principle in the factual backdrop of the present matter, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument that the prayer does not has any nexus with public interest. Thus, preliminary objection regarding maintainability is overruled. 14. However, when we apply those principle in the factual backdrop of the present matter, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument that the prayer does not has any nexus with public interest. Thus, preliminary objection regarding maintainability is overruled. 14. The learned Advocate General has rightly pointed out, in administrative decisions and particularly, in the decisions needs to be taken by expert bodies. Courts do not ‘ordinarily’ interfere. Interestingly, while laying down such principle in the case of Johri Mal (supra) on which reliance was placed by the State, the Apex Court considered English Law Judgment in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions vs. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 All ER 935. The Apex Court opined that ‘ordinarily’ the courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere in administrative decisions and functions. Clause (v) of said judgment is reproduced hereinunder: “(v) The courts cannot be called upon to undertake the government duties and functions. The court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. Social and economic belief of a judge should not be invoked as a substitute for the judgment of the legislative bodies. (See Ira Munn v. State of Illinois)” (Emphasis Supplied) 15. We agree with the argument advanced by learned Advocate General that fixing of suitable dates for erection/construction of piers etc., must be decided by the State Government or its authorities dealing with the traffic. It is noteworthy that earlier a joint understanding was arrived at and an undertaking was given on 4.09.2025 in the joint meeting, which is reproduced hereinabove. However, the said undertaking could not be translated into reality. 16. It goes without saying that so far the excuse of traffic congestion, festival season etc. are concerned, it needs to be noted that India is a country of festivals. One festival is followed by another festival. Thus, it is difficult to get a festival free season. Traffic congestion and pressure will continue to enhance and will not reduce. Thus, it is in the fitness of things to fix early dates for the construction of piers so that the people can get the benefit of travel at the earliest between two stations and in addition the cost escalation can be avoided. These elements are of paramount public interest. Decision without considering these factors must be called as ‘irrational’. 17. Thus, it is in the fitness of things to fix early dates for the construction of piers so that the people can get the benefit of travel at the earliest between two stations and in addition the cost escalation can be avoided. These elements are of paramount public interest. Decision without considering these factors must be called as ‘irrational’. 17. In this view of the matter, we are not satisfied with the stand taken in paragraph 4.4 of the joint meeting, which reads thus: “4.4. It was indicated that consideration could be given for granting NOC by Kolkata Police for two weekend night traffic blocks during 20.02.2006 to 22.02.2006 and 27.02.2006 to 01.03.2006, between 23:00 hrs. to 05:00 hrs.” 18. A microscopic reading of this clause shows that dates so reflected in this paragraph are only tentative/proposed in nature. In this view of the matter and knowing well that ordinarily we would not have passed such order, we are constrained to pass this order because previous undertaking so recorded on 04.09.2025 is not translated into reality and thereafter no settlement could be arrived at between the authorities. The ultimate impact is on the public interest in terms of the factors mentioned hereinabove. 19. In this view of the matter, we deem it proper to direct the State Government/Traffic Police to decide two consecutive weekend night traffic blockade dates for construction/erection of piers as desired by RVNL, Metro rail before 15.02.2026. The State shall communicate that decision regarding identifying those two consecutive weekend night traffic blockade dates to the RVNL and Metro rail on or before 06.01.2026. 20. It is expected that the authorities will work in tandem so that public interest is not suffered. 21. With these directions, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025 is disposed of. 22. At this stage, learned Advocate General prayed for staying the operative portion of this order. 23. The prayer is considered and rejected.