46. 46. 28.08.2026 (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. 20825 OF 2026 WITH CAN 1 OF 2026 CAN 2 OF 2026 PROBIR KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS AND PRADIP MOTILAL @ PRADIP KUMAR MOTILAL (APPLICANT IN CAN 1/ 2026) AND DILIP KUMAR MOTILAL @ DILIP MOTILAL (APPLICANT IN CAN 2/ 2026) …………… Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Md. Danish Farooqui, Adv. …For Petitioners Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, AG Mrs. Manju Manot, AGP Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Hemraj Adhikary, Adv. Mr. Indradeep Pal, Adv. …For State Mr. Subir Sanyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sourojit Mukherjee, Adv. …For Applicant (In CAN 1 of 2026) Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Aditya Mondal, Adv. ……For Applicant (In CAN 2 of 2026) 1. Affidavits-of-service filed on behalf of petitioners and applicants are taken on record. Supplementary affidavit affirmed on 20th August, 2026 filed on behalf of petitioners is also taken on record. 2. By presenting this writ petition, inter alia, petitioners have prayed for direction upon the concerned police authority to take steps which would permit petitioners to return back to the premises in question and run the party office. [2] 3. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that without due process of law petitioners were evicted from the premises in question on 4th August, 2026 forcibly and by coercion. It is also alleged on behalf of petitioners that petitioners were evicted by concerned police authority. 4. Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, learned Advocate General representing State respondents has opposed this writ petition and has drawn attention of this Court to the statements made in paragraph 25 of the writ petition. It is further contended that there was no overt-action as alleged on the part of concerned police authority so far eviction of petitioners is concerned. If petitioners are evicted from the premises in question, in that event, petitioners need to approach appropriate forum in pursuit of remedy. 5. Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned Senior Advocate representing applicant in CAN 1 of 2026 prays for direction to amend cause title of the writ petition and array the said applicant as respondent in this writ petition. In addition thereto submission is also made on behalf of said applicant that tenancy Agreement dated 1st April, 2000 was not made appropriately and the person, who allegedly inducted petitioners as tenants based on the said Agreement dated 1st April, 2000, was not the owner of the premises in question. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that he has right over the premises in question. 6. Be that as it may, this Court is not required to decide right, title and interest of the parties over the premises in question while examining present writ petition. If petitioners find that their right to stay at the premises in question as tenants is denied and they [3] were forcibly evicted from the premises, in that event, petitioners are required to approach Civil Court in pursuit of remedy. 7. Police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide right of the petitioners to occupy the premises in question as tenants. 8. Hence, present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 9. However, this order shall not preclude petitioners to approach appropriate forum in pursuit of remedy. 10. Applications filed in connection with the writ petition are disposed of. 11. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)