09.12.2025 Item No.61 Court No.37 CHC In The High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA (H) 64 of 2025 Subhamay Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Advocate Mr. Shraman Sarkar, Advocate Mr. Quazi Ezaz Ahmed, Advocate Mr. Dhiman Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Tasnim Ahmed, Advocate …for the petitioner Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Suddhadev Adak, Advocate Ms. Sumita Shaw, Advocate Mr. Bikas Goswami, Advocate Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Advocate …for the State Mr. Anirban Roy, Advocate …for the respondent no.9 1. Father of a minor girl is before Court seeking custody. 2. Mother of the child expired. 3. Child is presently with her maternal uncle. 4. We tried to mediate between the father and the maternal uncle. Apparently, the parties are not agreeable. 5. Writ petition of Habeas Corpus essentially requires the State authorities to apprise the Court as to the whereabouts of the person concerned. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petitioner is aware where his daughter is presently residing. 2 7. There are statutory alternative remedies available to the writ petitioner. Essentially, issue is with regard to the custody of the child concerned. 8. Writ petitioner may avail of his statutory remedies before the appropriate forum. 9. We clarify that we did not pronounce on the merits of the claim of the writ petitioner in any manner whatsoever. The fact that, the child is with her maternal uncle or the interim order passed by the coordinate Bench in this regard or our disposal of the writ petition, will in no manner impede a decision as to the custody of the child, by the appropriate forum and as also, interim measures to be put in place as required. 10. WPA (H) 64 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)