Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Partha Sarathi Chandra & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 June, 2022
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
18 08.06.2022
PA (P. Adak)
MAT 1288 of 2021
With
CAN 1 of 2021
Partha Sarathi Chandra & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee
Mr. Dipayan Kundu
Ms. Jyoti Rauth
Mr. Soumojit Majumder, Advocates
... for the appellants
Md. T.M. Siddiqui
Mr. S. Kabir, Advocates
... for the State
Mr. Biswajit Sahu, Advocate
...for the respondent no. 3
This appeal is at the instance of the respondent nos. 3 to 5 in the writ petition challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.11.2021 whereby WPA 11588 of 2021 has been disposed of the certain directions.
The respondent no. 3 herein (writ petitioner), had filed the petition mainly as against the appellants seeking a direction to restrain them from creating any mental and physical torture and to allow the respondent no. 3 to enjoy the premises as per her wishes and requirement. The appellant no. 1 is the son of the respondent no. 3, and appellant no. 2 is the wife of the appellant no. 1 (daughter-in-law of respondent no. 3) and appellant no. 3 is the son of the appellant no. 1 2 (grandson of the respondent no. 3). In the petition, the allegations were made by the respondent no. 3 about the mental and physical torture by the appellants.
Learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has directed ouster of the appellant nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the daughter-in-law and the grandson of the respondent no. 3 from the premises in question.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is not supported by any reasoning or conclusion and that Writ Court cannot pass a direction for dispossession of the appellants and that the civil suit is already pending and after order of the learned Single Judge, nothing remains to be decided in the suit and there is no material of any physical or mental torture by the appellants to the respondent no. 3 and it is a property dispute and the writ petition itself was filed by the respondent no. 3 under the influence of one of promoters of adjoining property as the respondent no. 3 cannot read or write English and that appellant no. 1 is ready to perform all his duties towards the respondent no. 3.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has alleged that she is widowed lady, not maintained by the appellant and the order of the learned Single Judge is for maintaining peace.
Learned counsel for the State has also submitted 3 that the proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. have been initiated.
Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the learned Single Judge has recorded the argument and thereafter without giving any reason or recording any finding, straightway has issued a direction to the Inspector-in-Charge, Behala Police Station to escort the appellant nos. 2 and 3 out of the house forthwith and immediately by permitting the said appellants to remove all their articles from the premises and further directing that the appellant nos. 2 and 3 will not be permitted to enter into the residence without the leave in writing of the respondent no. 3 duly countersigned by the Inspector-in-Charge, Behala Police Station. Before issuing such a direction. Learned Single Judge was required to consider the rival contention of the parties and record reasons for issuing such a harsh direction against the appellant nos. 2 and 3. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, such a direction was not warranted especially when the title suit is already pending and the dispute is private in nature.
The mediation attempt made by this Court has failed as the respondent no. 3 had not agreed for the amicable settlement.
Having regard to the aforesaid, we are unable to 4 sustain the order of the learned Single Judge which is, accordingly, set aside.
Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.) (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)