Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Tapan Pradhan & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 March, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P.No.5157(W) of 2011
Sri Tapan Pradhan & Anr.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Amitabha Ghosh
Mr. Rivu Dutta ....for the petitioners
Mrs. Seba Roy ....for the State
Heard on : March 21, 2011
Order on : March 21, 2011
The Court : The petitioners in this art.226 petition are seeking the
following principal reliefs:
"a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent
authorities including respondent No.3 herein to show cause as to why the Officer-in-Charge of the Raidighi Police Station, the respondent No.4 herein would not immediately honour and comply with the order dated 17.01.2011 of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour vide Memo No.41 dated 17.01.2011 and register an FIR against the private respondents.
b) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.4 herein to show cause as to why the respondent No.4 should immediately honour and comply with the order dated 25.211.2010 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Diamond Harbour in T.S.No.232/2010 and keep vigil over the suit property so that the status quo injunction is complied with."
Counsel submits that inspite of an order of the Civil Court dated November 25, 2010 (at p.37) and an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour dated January 17, 2011 the police have not taken any step against the defendants in the suit who are also the persons against whom the application under s.156(3) in which the order dated January 17, 2011 was passed was filed. He says that the persons are not permitting the petitioners to cultivate the lands. He invites me to make an order directing supply of police guards at the petitioners' expense.
If inspite of the order dated November 25, 2010 made by the Civil Court the police have not taken any step, then the petitioners' remedy, if any, was to apply to the Civil Court stating the fact. The question whether the police have failed and neglected to take steps in terms of the order is not to be examined by 2 the High Court under art.226 initiating parallel proceedings. Hence I do not find any reason to direct the police to do anything in terms of the order dated November 25, 2010 of the Civil Court.
The order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated January 17, 2011 has not been produced. It appears from the document at p.57 (a copy of the petitioners' application under s.156(3) CrPC) that it was sent to the officer in charge of Raidighi police station for registering an FIR; and that it was sent by a memo dated February 6, 2011. From the document at p.63 (a copy of the s.156(3) CrPC application of the second petitioner) it appears that a copy of the document was also sent to the officer in charge of the same police station for registration of an FIR; and that it was sent by a memo dated January 17, 2011.
There is nothing to show that the applications sent presumably by the Court were received by the officer in charge; and that even after receipt of the applications the officer in charge refused to register an FIR. On the contrary, it is evident from the document at p.61 that the officer in charge of the police station registered an FIR No.219 dated September 23, 2010 on the basis of the information supplied by the first petitioner.
On these facts, I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. It is for the petitioners to ascertain from the Court concerned whether the applications were actually forwarded to the officer in charge and from the police station whether on receipt of the applications from the Court steps were taken for registration of FIRs. There is no reason for me to ignore the fact that the petitioners and the private respondents have instituted cases and counter-cases.
The petitioners are free to approach the Civil Court concerned for enforcement of the order dated November 25, 2010. It is to be noted that the order was an order of status quo. Hence there is reason for this Court to examine whether the petitioners are entitled to cultivate the lands. For the purpose it will be necessary for this Court to hold that the petitioners are in possession. I do not find any reason to examine all these questions concerning the private disputes between the petitioners and the private respondents.
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
3(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sb