Form No. J.(2) Item No.3 Pallab/KS AR(Ct.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE HEARD ON: 23.04.2025 DELIVERED ON: 23.04.2025 CORAM: THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) M.A.T. 240 of 2025 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025 Dr. Sisir Ray Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Appearance:- Mr. Arunangshu Chakraborty Mr. Dhiman Kumar Sengupta Mr. Arijit Kr. Bera Ms. Shaika Amrin …..For the Appellant Mr. Amal Kr. Sen, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Lal Mohan Basu …..For the State Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh Mr. P. Agarwal …..For the Private Respondents (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) 1. This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated February 10, 2025 in W.P.A. 2482 of 2025. The writ petition was filed alleging police inaction. The learned Writ Court has elaborately considered the factual position and has clearly recorded a finding that the appellant is trying to agitate his civil rights in the writ petition by indirectly seeking for other reliefs and alleging police inaction and, therefore, it was observed that the Court cannot enter into the domain of any agreement, which has been entered into by and between the parties. 2 2 2. Before us, Mr. Arunangshu Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the appellant would reiterate the facts and submitted that the development agreement, which was entered into between the appellant and the private respondents was cancelled in the year 2019 and has made certain submissions in that regard and also referred to the provisions of the Government Grants Act and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Azim Ahmad Kazmi & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2012) 7 SCC 278 and has referred to paragraph 33 of the said judgment. 3. In our considered view, the appellant cannot agitate any of his civil rights in a writ petition, wherein the allegation was only with regard to police inaction. 4. The learned Single Bench has taken note of the report filed by the concerned police and was satisfied that the action taken, yet issued the following directions:- “However, having regard to the fact that the police authorities have been keeping a sharp vigil at the area, I direct that surveillance be kept by the police authorities in case there is any possibility of any untoward incident because of the strained relationship existing between the parties. The police authorities would also take appropriate and/or effective step(s) to prevent any breach of peace and tranquillity in the area which may take place because of the inimical relationship existing between the parties. With the aforesaid observations, WPA 2482 of 2025 is disposed of.” 5. Thus, in our view, the learned Single Bench has sufficiently safeguarded the rights of the parties by virtue of the above directions/observations. 6. So far as the appellant’s attempt to canvass the effect of the cancellation of the development agreement etc., those are all matters, which are beyond the scope of the consideration in a writ petition wherein the allegation was regarding 3 3 police inaction. The learned Single Bench is satisfied that the police have taken appropriate action and no further direction are required. 7. For the above reasons, we find no ground has been made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench. 8. Accordingly, appeal fails and dismissed along with the connected application (I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025) . 9. No costs. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE I agree. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)