In cases of Writ in the nature of Mandamus, necessary arrangements should be made to do a fruitful investigation: Calcutta High Court
In respect of the issue of mortgaged property and restoration of possession, it was found that the dispute was of civil nature between the private parties. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta before The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj in the matter of Dinesh Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal &amp; Ors [MAT 863 of 2021 With IA CAN 1 2021]. The Writ petitioner questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Single Judge on 14.07.2021. It was found by the Single Judge that the dispute raised by the appellant was of civil nature. According to the submissions by the appellant, the police failed to justify the civil dispute and wrongly handed over the possession of the premises and goods kept therein to the private respondent. The counsel representing the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that based upon factual controversy the appellant tries to set up the entire story and approached the required forum and establish it by way of evidence. It was reported that the official respondents had denied the plea of forcible dispossession by filing an affidavit in opposition and disclosing that 4 women including 2 senior citizens were locked in the premises in question and on receiving an intimation they were rescued.  The Hon’ble Court considering all the facts stated that “The perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that the issues raised by the appellant have been duly considered and appropriate conclusions have been drawn. In this view of the matter, we do not find any informity or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, no case is made out to interfere in the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is found to be devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed.”
Pronounced on: 16.11.2021 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appellate Side) MAT 8621 IA CAN 1 2021 Reserved on: 10.11.2021 Vs Dinesh Agarwal Present: State of West Bengal & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Dinesh Agarwal ... Appellant in person. Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharjee Mr. Balaram Patra Advocates for the respondent nos. 7 and 8 Mr. Amitesh Banerjee Mr. Tarak Kanan Advocates for the State. Coram: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ Prakash Shrivastava CJ: By this appeal correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.07.2021 passed in WPA No. 108520 has been MAT 8621 questioned by the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge has found that the dispute raised by the appellant is of civil nature and a factual Submission of the appellant in person is that the police is not justified in saying that it is civil dispute and that the police has wrongly handed over the possession of the premises and goods kept therein to the private respondent. Opposing the prayer learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the entire story which the appellant has tried to set up is based upon the factual controversy for which he is required to approach the appropriate forum and establish it by way of evidence. He submits that the police authorities have rescued the persons who were forcibly locked inside the premises. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the records it is noticed that the appellant had come to the writ court with the plea that the premises in question was mortgaged in which he had started his business and was forcibly dispossessed therefrom. Following was the prayer made in the writ petition. A writ in the nature of Mandamus by directing the respondents their agents servants mainly the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry and suspend the respondent no. 5 and start departmental proceedings against the concerned officer that is respondent nos. 3 4 and 6. A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to handover and restore the possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for make necessary arrangements to do a fruitful investigation and taken necessary action in connection to Bidhannagar Police Station case no. MAT 8621 107 dated 25 8 2020 under section 341 323 406 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. and make the rule absolute. Rule N.I.S.I. in terms of prayer(b) andabove e) Pass such other or orders as Your Lordship may deed fit and proper.” The official respondents had denied the plea of forcibly dispossession by filing an affidavit in opposition and disclosing that 4 women including 2 senior citizens were locked in the premises in question and on receiving an intimation they were rescued. In the light of the aforesaid learned Single Judge has duly considered each of the prayers made by the appellant and has reach to the conclusion that considering the affidavit of the official respondents conclusion cannot be drawn that the police personnel were guilty of latches and breaches as complained of by the petitioner. In respect of the issue of mortgaged property and restoration of possession it has been found that the dispute is of civil nature between the private parties. Hence liberty has been granted to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. In respect of the police case a direction has been issued to conclude the investigation and submit a report before the jurisdictional Court within a time bound period. The perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that the issues raised by the appellant have been duly considered and appropriate conclusions have been drawn. In this view of the matter we do not find any informity or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence no case is made out to interfere in MAT 8621 the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is found to be devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed. PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE 