Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dhananjoy Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 June, 2015
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
23.06.2015
Item No.39
SB
W.P. 29832 (W) of 2014
Dhananjoy Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. P. P. Roy................for the petitioner.
Mr. S. Sanyal,
Mr. J. P. Chatterjee...............for the State.
By presenting this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for inter
alia the following relief:
"A) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent
particularly respondent nos. 3 and 4 to prevent the private respondents from causing any disturbance in respect of plot of land as directed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Title Appeal No. 22 of 2011.
B) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members from the hand of the private respondents by providing adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members in possessing the land measuring about 54 decimals situates at Mouza Matiapara, P.S.- Jiaganj, District - Murshidabad, plot no.171, L.R. Khaitan No.194." In paragraphs 14 and 16 of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded to the following effect:
"14. Your petitioner states that, due to the illegal action of the private respondent, the petitioner's right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India has also been seriously prejudiced.
16. Your petitioner states that, the necessary direction was passed by the competent court of law to the police authority to restrain the private respondent from carrying their illegal activities, and as per section 23 of the Police Act casts a duty upon the Police Officer to prevent commission of offences and public nuisance and to apprehend all persons committing such illegalities, but in the present case the police authority has failed to discharge his duty 2 by not preventing the private respondent from committing the aforesaid illegal act."
Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has failed to draw to the notice of this Court to any order made by a competent Court of law directing the police to act in a particular manner. In the absence thereof, it is clear that Section 23 of the Police Act does not have any application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. That apart, it is clear from the petitioner's own pleading that it is not the State but the private respondent who has been infringing his right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that this writ petition ought not to be entertained. The same stands dismissed, without costs. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to pursue his remedy by applying for execution of the decree before the executing court in accordance with law, if so advised.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties as early as possible.
(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)