HARUN RASHID MALLICK v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
WPA/17261/2026 · 2026-07-29
Saugata Bhattacharyya
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 31313 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 31313 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
29.07.2026
Item no.DL 17 Court No. 05
Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side
Case No.
WPA 17261 of 2026
In the matter of :
DR. HARUN RASHID MALLICK … Petitioner VS.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. … Respondents
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amitava Pain Mr. Subhrangshu Datta … Advocates For the State : Mr. Debabrata Mondal Ms. Sreetama Neogi … Advocates
1. Affidavit of service and supplementary affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner are taken on record.
2. Prayer is made in this writ petition seeking implementation of order dated 18th May, 2026 passed by Jurisdictional Executive Magistrate in
order to protect right of the petitioner over the property in question.
3. State respondents are represented by learned advocates.
4. Having considered the case made out in this writ petition and submission made on behalf of the respective parties, it is found that a mandamus is sought for thereby directing concerned authority to take steps for implementing order dated 18th
Page 2
May, 2026 passed by Jurisdictional Executive Magistrate. Writ Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an executing Court in connection with order passed by Executive Magistrate. If petitioner is dissatisfied with the acts and actions of the authorities which are contrary to the order passed by Jurisdictional Executive Magistrate, in that event petitioner needs to approach within statutory framework.
5. However, on consideration of the case made out, it also appears that prayer is made for execution of the
order dated 18th May, 2026 of Jurisdictional Executive Magistrate in order to protect petitioner’s right over property in question. If petitioner’s right over the property is being denied, in that event petitioner needs to approach appropriate forum. Police authority is not the authority to decide right of the petitioner over the property in question.
6. Hence, writ petition is not interfered with and the same stands dismissed.
7. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
( Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. )