Tapati Chakraborty & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6381 Cal

Form No. J(2)

             IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                           Appellate Side

Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta


                      W.P.A. 18561 of 2023

                     Tapati Chakraborty & anr.
                                 Vs.
                   The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioners            Mr. Nirmal Kumar Mukherjee

For the respondent no.4        Mr. Sanat Kumar Das
                               Mr. Sujan Chatterjee
                               Mr. Anirban Guhathakurta
                               Mr. Debayan Mukherjee

For the respondent
nos. 6 & 7                     Ms. Jeenia Rudra
                               Mr. Megha Chanda

For the State respondent       Mr. Sk. Md. Galib
                              Mr. Anirban Datta


Heard on           : 21.09.2023.

Judgment on        : 21.09.2023.

Jay Sengupta, J.

Fresh report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits

as follows. Since 2012, outsiders and hooligans of the locality have

been harassing the petitioners who are the owners of a flat there. They

wanted to grab their property. Some of the outsiders claimed to have

been inducted in the premises by the land owners, but they do not

have valid documents. They are hands in glove with the local police

officers. They are continuing to harass the petitioners. Often the

common passageway is blocked. Water line is disconnected. Even the

CCTV has been damaged. There is a photo attached to the writ

petition that a local police officer was peeping into the CCTV camera.

Soon thereafter, the CCTV was found broken.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the

report and submits as follows. There are cases and counter cases

including a civil suit pending between the private parties. On the

allegation of tampering with water line, a specific case was registered

pursuant to a direction under Section 156 (3) of the Code being

Sarsuna Police Station Case No. 70 dated 01.09.2023. The petitioners

frequently dial 100 at the Lalbazar Control Room alleging some

disturbance or the other. Such complaints from the petitioners have

been inquiry from time to time and diarized. The prime issue between

the co-owners seem to pertain to maintenance, renovation and others

usury rights in the common premises. Pursuant to the order passed

by this Court, police protection has already been provided to the

petitioners. It is germane to mention that it was earlier wrongly

submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it was the Officer in Charge

of the local police station who was found peeping through the camera.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it

was a bona fide mistake committed by the petitioners because they

had found the particular police officer sitting at the police station and

claiming to be the Officer in Charge.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4

submits that although he is an owner of the first floor of the property,

he has not been residing there for the last few years because of the

disturbances created by the petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 6

and 7 denies the allegations and submits that the respondent no.6 is

the owner of the ground floor flat.

It appears that there exist certain disputes between the private

parties regarding the user of the property. Allegations and counter-

allegations have been levelled.

It also appears that some steps have been taken by the local

police authorities on the complaints made by the petitioners. As many

as four FIRs were registered at the behest of the petitioners.

Therefore, no further order need be passed in this regard.

However, the police authorities shall keep a sharp vigil at the

locale, ensure that no breach of peace takes place and see to it that no

harm is done to the present petitioners.

The respondent authorities shall not involve the police officer

whose photo is appended at page 67 of the writ petition to participate

in any manner in respect to the suit property or any dispute between

the present private parties.

The police security provided by the respondent authorities shall

continue for a period of two months from this date.

The personal appearance of the Officer in Charge of Sarsuna

Police Station is dispensed with.

The writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the

parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

ssi