Calcutta High Court stays Railway eviction notice near Howrah Station

Soumyadip Mullick, MP, 23 May 2026, Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has stayed operation of an unsigned eviction notice issued against a businessman operating near Howrah station, observing prima facie that the notice was “vague” as it neither disclosed the statutory authority under which it had been issued nor bore the signature of any responsible railway official.

Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya passed the order on Friday while hearing a petition filed by Sundar Tewar, who claimed to have been running a business from premises at Rishi Bankim Chandra Road near Howrah station since 2016.

According to the petitioner, persons claiming to be railway officials pasted an undated and unsigned notice on his office door on May 18 directing removal of the alleged encroachment by May 23.

Senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the notice had not been issued under any identifiable statutory provision and that the petitioner could not be evicted without due process of law.

Appearing for the Railways, senior advocate Kumar Jyoti Tiwari submitted that encroachment removal drives were being conducted under the “Amrit Bharat Prakalpa” policy and claimed the petitioner was occupying railway land unauthorisedly.

The Railways relied on provisions of the Railways Act empowering authorities to remove trespassers from railway property.

The court noted that the petitioner had already submitted objections against the eviction notice but no decision on those objections had yet been communicated by the railway authorities.

Observing that the “interest of justice would be sub-served” if the objections were considered by a competent authority, the court permitted the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah Division by May 25.

The court fixed May 29 for a hearing before the railway authority and directed that a reasoned order be placed before the court on June 10.

It also stayed operation of the eviction notice insofar as the petitioner is concerned till the end of June or until further orders.