21.07.2026 Sl. 197 AMR Ct.No. 237 CRR 2941 of 2026 Tathagata Datta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Tathagata Datta … for the Petitioner (In-person) The petitioner appears in person. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed a Public Interest Litigation, being WPA (P) No. 16 of 2021 (Tathagata Datta –vs.– Union of India & Ors.), alleging, inter alia, that one Prosenjit Chakraborty, claiming himself to be an employee of the Eastern Railway, was misusing his authority in connivance with the officials of the Eastern Railway. The said writ petition was disposed of with the observation that, in the event any specific complaint was made against persons claiming themselves to be employees of the Railways, the police authorities would be at liberty to investigate such allegations, as impersonation constitutes an offence. It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 356 of 2025 against the said Prosenjit Chakraborty, raising substantially the same allegations, 2 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court- cum-Railway Magistrate, Sealdah, South 24-Parganas. The learned Magistrate called for a report from the Eastern Railway authorities. Pursuant thereto, the Eastern Railway authorities submitted a report stating that the said Prosenjit Chakraborty was a bona fide employee of the Eastern Railway. Upon consideration of the said report, the learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings by an order dated 22nd June, 2026, which was duly communicated to the petitioner. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 22nd June, 2026 passed by the learned Magistrate. Upon enquiry, the competent authority found the said Prosenjit Chakraborty to be a bona fide employee of the Eastern Railway. The petitioner, however, submits before this Court that, during the hearing of WPA (P) No. 16 of 2021 before the Division Bench, the Eastern Railway authorities had filed an affidavit stating that Prosenjit Chakraborty was not an employee of the Eastern Railway. If the petitioner has reason to believe that an incorrect affidavit was filed before the Division Bench of this Court, he shall be at liberty to take such steps as may be available to him in accordance with law for drawing the attention of the said Division Bench to the matter. 3 Accordingly, CRR 2941 of 2026 stands disposed of. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Kausik Chanda, J.)