08. 08. 31.07.2026 (D/L) (D/L) CT. NO. 05 CT. NO. 05 (ARPAN-A.R.CT.) In The High Court at Calcutta CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 15530 OF 2026 SIPRA DAS VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS …………… Mr. Suchindram Chatterjee, Adv. …For Petitioner Mr. Indrajit Roy Chowdhury, AGP Mr. Soujanya Bandyopadhyay, Adv. …For State Mr. Akash Dutta, Adv. Mr. Manish Biswas, Adv. …For Respondent No.2 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is forcible closing down of petitioner’s shop room by respondent no.2 without following due process of law prompting petitioner to approach this Court with the present writ petition seeking direction upon the concerned police authority to take necessary steps which would facilitate petitioner to enjoy possession of the shop room in question. 3. State respondents and respondent no.2 are represented by learned advocates who have jointly submitted that issue involved in this writ petition is civil in nature. 4. Learned advocate representing State respondents has filed a communication dated 15th July, 2026 of Inspector-in-Charge, Nimta Police Station, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate and same is taken on record. Copies of the said communication dated 15th July, 2026 are made over to the learned [2] advocates representing petitioner and respondent no.2. 5. It is disclosed in the communication dated 15th July, 2026 that tenancy agreement between petitioner and respondent no.2 was executed on 1st June, 2018 for a period of three years and thereafter there was no further agreement made between the parties. 6. In aforesaid facts if petitioner is aggrieved by the steps taken by respondent no.2 denying petitioner’s right to enjoy possession of shop room, in that event, petitioner needs to approach Civil Court in pursuit of remedy. 7. Police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide inter se right of the parties so far possession of the shop room is concerned. 8. Hence, writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 9. However, this order shall not preclude petitioner to approach appropriate forum, in pursuit of remedy. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)