01.09.2026 rpan/07 MAT 1443 of 2026 + IA No.: CAN 1 of 2026 [Stay] Riziya Bibi & Others - Versus - Firoj Khan & Others Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Mr. Gourab Ghosh … for the Appellants. Mr. Kallol Basu, Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta, Mr. Sakya Maity, Mr. Subhas Jana, Ms. Mohua Palit … for the Respondent no.1 / Writ Petitioner. Mr. Susanta Dutta, Ms. Debjani Ghosal … for the State/Respondents. Mr. Sourav Sen, Mr. Arun Kumar Das, Ms. Subhangi Bhattacharya … for the pro forma Respondent No.11. The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 21st August, 2026 passed by the learned single Judge in a writ petition, being WPA 19792 of 2026. Mr. Galib, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits at the inception that the order dated 21st August, 2026 was obtained without effecting service upon the appellants and as a consequence thereof, the appellants could not appear and apprise the Court of the relevant facts. He argues that the appellants are the owners of the concerned plot of land over which the shop namely, ‘Mousumi Bag & Tripal Centre’ exists. The writ petitioner is a tenant under the said appellants and the learned single Judge ought not to have entered into a civil dispute and passed a direction upon the Inspector-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station to take steps permitting the writ petitioner to run his shop and to provide him necessary police assistance. In support the contention that the appellants are the owners, reliance has been placed upon the averments made in two previous applications preferred by the appellants under the provisions of Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 163(2) of the BNSS]. According to Mr. Galib, by the order impugned a final relief has been granted at the interim stage, moreso in a civil dispute amongst the parties. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent no.1, however, denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Galib and submits that the writ petitioner had been running the shop under the name and style ‘Mousumi Bag & Tripal Centre’ for decades and he had been forcibly dispossessed at the instance of the appellants herein. The complaint lodged to that effect was also not dealt with by the police authorities. In the said conspectus, the learned single Judge exercised 2 discretion in favour of the writ petitioner and there is no infirmity in the order impugned. Mr. Sen, learned senior advocate appearing for the pro forma respondent no.11 admits the possession of the writ petitioner over the shop room in question and submits that the said respondent is a co-sharer of the concerned plot of land upon which the shop stands and he has inducted the writ petitioner. In reply, Mr. Galib denies and disputes the contention of the respondents. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. From the contents of paragraph 3 of the affidavit-of-service, it appears that service was effected upon all the appellants but they refused and as such, the contention of Mr. Galib that the order was passed without effecting proper service, is not acceptable to this Court. The learned single Judge exercised discretion in favour of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 upon arriving at a prima facie finding that without due process of law the writ petitioner’s shop was damaged and was put under lock and key. However, the writ petition had been made returnable on 3rd September, 2026 directing the respondent no.4 in 3 the writ petition to submit a detailed report disclosing the steps taken in terms of the said order. In the said conspectus, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and as such, no interference is called for in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 4