12.11.2025 Item no. DL 14 Court No. 26 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. WPA 25150 of 2025 In the matter of : Searsole Sports and Cultural Association & Anr. …. Petitioners VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors. ….Respondents For the Petitioners : Mrs. Chama Mookherji Mr. Anujit Mookherji Ms. Monisha Chatterjee Ms. Reshmi Nehar ….Advocates For the Respondents / State : Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Mr. Debopriyo Karan ….Advocates For the Respondent no. 7 : Mr. Supratim Dhar Mr. Sayan Mukherjee Mr. Swapnil Mukherjee ….Advocates Affidavit of service filed by the petitioners and report submitted by the State are taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner being Searsole Sports and Cultural Association has been conducting several programmes including religious programmes in the plot in question which is admittedly a debuttar property owned by several sebaits including the private respondent. One of the sebaits is also the president of the society. This year the petitioners have organized a cultural event on 15th and 16th of this month and Page 2 approached the police authority seeking permission to organize the same. The police authority refused to accept their application and informed them that one of the sebaits filed an application under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Executive Magistrate has directed enquiry and report therein. The petitioners submit that they have been conducting such programmes in the plot from 1976 with the deemed permission of the sebaits and no explicit permission was ever required to be taken from them except for holding religious functions. They seek intervention of the police to enable them to conduct the event. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the State submits that the mandatory permissions required to be taken from the relevant authorities, have not been taken. The sebaits of the debuttar property have not been impleaded as parties to the writ petition and the society is planning to hold the programme without obtaining any permission from the sebaits, which is illegal. A mass petition has been filed before the police authority by local people requesting stoppage of the said programme. Learned counsel for the private respondent submits that the plot in question is a debuttar property and has been accordingly recorded in the Record of Rights. Though the name of the petitioners’ Page 3 association has also been recorded in the Record of Rights, their status in respect of the property is not clear. A petition for correction of the records is pending. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. It is not in dispute that the property is a debuttar property as recorded in the Record of Rights. Though the name of the petitioners’ association also features in the records, their status in respect of the property is not stated. This Court is informed that a miscellaneous case has been filed for deletion of the name from the Record of Rights, which is pending. The petitioners claim that they have been performing several programmes / functions in the plot from 1976. There is no document to substantiate their contention. The documents on record suggest that permission was obtained from the police authority before holding programmes in the plot. But there is no document to indicate that permission of the sebaits was taken for the same. According to the petitioners, no objection has ever been raised by the sebaits in conducting any programme in the plot by the petitioners which amounts to deemed permission. I am afraid such contention of the petitioners has no legal sanction. Only because the sebaits did not object to holding of programmes by the petitioners in the Page 4 plot earlier, it cannot be said that they are compelled to grant such permission this time or that the petitioners have the right to conduct the programme even without the permission of the sebaits. The plot being a private property and no permission having been taken from the Sebaits to conduct the programme, this Court is of the view that such permission cannot be granted to the petitioners by the Court. The police also cannot be directed to intervene to assist the petitioners. The petitioners are at liberty to seek necessary consent of the sebaits in the event they intend to hold the programme on the 15th and 16th of this month. With the above observations, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously after complying with all requisite formalities. ( Suvra Ghosh, J. )