TAPAS KUMAR MANNA BHASKAR ROY vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — WPA/6640/2026
Case under Essential Commodities Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 06th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0129442026
Filing Number
WPA/6575/2026
Filing Date
17-Mar-2026
Registration No
WPA/6640/2026
Registration Date
18-Mar-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Justice Smita Das De
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Smita Das De
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 8 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
06-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 03-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.TAPAS KUMAR MANNA BHASKAR ROY
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Justice Smita Das DeView PDF
The court disposed of the writ petition without deciding its merits, directing respondent no. 4 (Food & Supply Department) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's pending representation dated 12.3.2026 within eight weeks, affording both parties a hearing, and to communicate the decision within one week thereafter. The court noted that the private respondent had already been selected for the fair price shop dealership license, but since the license had not yet been granted and the petitioner's representation remained pending, the authorities were permitted to conduct further inspections if necessary before making a final decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-May-2026
New Motion
Hon'ble Justice Smita Das De
-
04-May-2026
New Motion
Hon'ble Justice Smita Das De
-
25-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPA/6640/2026
The court disposed of the writ petition without deciding its merits, directing respondent no. 4 (Food & Supply Department) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's pending representation dated 12.3.2026 within eight weeks, affording both parties a hearing, and to communicate the decision within one week thereafter. The court noted that the private respondent had already been selected for the fair price shop dealership license, but since the license had not yet been granted and the petitioner's representation remained pending, the authorities were permitted to conduct further inspections if necessary before making a final decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts