Basabi Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Accordingly, having regard to the submissions made hereinabove, though the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, however, the aforesaid order shall not stand in the way of the authorities for proceeding further in the matter in relation to violation of the provisions of 17A…
Judgment
Ms. Juin Dutta Chakraborty Mr. Saptarshi Chakraborty Ms. Arpita Kundu … For the petitioner. Mr. Md Farhaduddin Ms. Debangana Dey … For the State Mr. Usof Ali Dewan Mr. Asif Dewan … For the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Ms. Chakraborty, learned advocate representing the petitioner by placing before this Court a communication dated 6th December, 2025 would submit that the petitioner does not intend to proceed further with the instant writ petition.
Learned advocate representing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand would submit that on the basis of a complaint made by the petitioner an enquiry has already been made. As per such enquiry, it transpires that the provisions of Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984, Section 204A and 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 stand attracted. According to such report, the competent authority is vested with the WPA 15392 of 2025 2 powers to adjudicate and enforce the provisions of Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984.
Accordingly, having regard to the submissions made hereinabove, though the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, however, the aforesaid order shall not stand in the way of the authorities for proceeding further in the matter in relation to violation of the provisions of 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 and the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.
The communication dated 6th December, 2025 as placed before this Court by Ms. Chakraborty is taken on record. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.