S/L 13 13.07.2026 Court. No. 25 Sourav WPA 5577 of 2026 Sri Naren @ Naran Bakshi Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Balaram Neogi … for the petitioner. Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee Ms. Aparna Bose … for the State. 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of one room, verandah with vacant space and common toilet surrounded by walls measuring 420 Sq. Ft. under Mouza- Chakmir, Budge Budge Trunk Road, P.O. Santoshpur, P.S. Zinzira Bazar Phari under Maheshtala police station, Kolkata. 2. He submits that the respondent nos. 6 and 7 being the landlords have illegally evicted the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner has initiated a civil suit before the learned 6th Court, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipore in Title Suit No. 1762 of 2022. He submits that pendency of the civil suit all of a sudden on December 11, 2025 when the petitioner was on duty, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 with the help of their associates and bulldozers have demolished the tenanted premises of the petitioner and taken away all the belongings of the petitioners including the cash, gold and silver ornaments. After the said incident, the petitioner has made a complaint to the Maheshtala Police Station, the police has initiated a G.D. being G.D.E. No. 665 dated 11.12.2025 but thereafter, the police has not taken any steps. 2 3. The petitioner has made a detailed representation to the District Magistrate, i.e., the respondent no. 2 against the illegal act of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 but the District Magistrate has not considered the representation filed by the petitioner and the same is pending before the authority. He prays for a direction upon the District Magistrate to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State raised objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ application and he submits that the petitioner has already initiated a suit and the dispute is between the landlord and the tenant and as such, the writ petition cannot be entertained. He further submits that whatever the grievance, the petitioner can make all the grievances before the civil court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the materials on record. 6. This Court finds that petitioner has already initiated a suit with regard to the landlord and tenancy dispute but in the meantime, the private respondents alleged to have been demolished the premises of the petitioner and the petitioner has made a complaint to the police but the police did not take any action and thereafter, the petitioner has made a complaint to the District Magistrate but the District Magistrate has not considered the representation of the petitioner and the same is pending. 7. In view of the above, without going into the further merit of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by directing 3 the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, i.e., the respondent no. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8. WPA 5577 of 2026 is disposed of. 9. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)