Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33672 (CAL)

AJMIR TOWER PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/19800/2026 · 2026-08-21

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

14 2211..0088..22002266 Ct. No. 05 adeb WPA 19800 of 2026 Ajmir Tower Private Limited & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Ms. Trisha Rakshit Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty Ms. Sadia Parveen …for the petitioners Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya Mr. Dipankar Ghosh ,,,for the KMC Mr. Debapriya Gupta Mr. Anindya Sudar Das Mr. Sudipta Ghosh …for the State 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of petitioners is taken on record. 2. By presenting this writ petition prayer is made for providing police protection at the site of a construction company since it is alleged that project work is being hampered due to disturbance and threat by others. It is also submitted that petitioner is ready to deposit cost for providing police protection. 3. State respondents and Kolkata Municipal Corporation are represented by learned advocates. 4. Learned advocate representing State respondents has filed a communication of Officer-in-Charge, Narkeldanga Police Station and same is taken on record. Copy of the 2 communication is made over to the learned advocate representing petitioner. 5. It transpires from the said communication that one Raju Naskar is one of the Directors of Ajmir Tower Private Limited being petitioner no. 1 and on behalf of such organization prayer is made for directing the police authorities to provide protection to said Raju Naskar. Ten criminal prosecutions are pending against said Raju Naskar, particulars of which are disclosed in the communication filed today on behalf of State respondents. 6. It is also submitted by the learned advocate representing State respondents that on 14th July, 2026 another FIR was registered against said Raju Naskar. 7. From the facts emanate from submission made on behalf of State respondents and communication filed today that petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands seeking direction upon the police authority to provide police protection. 8. This Court is not inclined to allow the petition thereby directing the concerned respondent authorities to provide protection since against one of the Directors of petitioner no. 1 several criminal prosecutions are pending. 9. Hence, present writ petition is dismissed. 3 10. Parties to act on server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)