Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 44183 (CAL)

SK AHAMAD ALI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/25600/2026 · 2026-09-30

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

21 Ranajit (AR.CT) 30.09.2026 Ct.05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO 25600 OF 2026 Sk. Ahamad Ali -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Sk. Toslim Ali ….for the petitioner. Mr. Satyam Pandey, Mr. Priyabrota Das ….for the respondents no. 5. Mr. Abhijit Ray, Mr. Suranjit Ghosh ….for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. By presenting this writ petition prayer is made for directing concerned police authorities to take steps which would permit petitioner to run his shop. It is submitted that by lodging complaint dated 19th August, 2026 before concerned police authorities it was alleged that respondent no.5 along with others are making obstruction in running business of petitioner by keeping his shop open. It is further submitted that they are trying to take possession of said shop. 3. However, learned advocate representing respondent no.5 on instruction submits that respondent no.5 does not have claim over the shop room in question and allegation of creating disturbance thereby preventing petitioner from running his business is disputed. 4. Learned advocate representing State respondents has filed a communication dated 29th September, 2026 of Officer-in-Charge, Jagatballavpur Police Station and same is taken on record. Copies of communication dated 29th September, 2026 are made over to learned advocates representing petitioner and respondent no.5. 5. It is disclosed in communication dated 29th September, 2026 that based on complaint dated 19th August, 2026 no FIR was registered but one Non-Cognizance Report No. 700/26 dated 26th August, 2026 was submitted. 6. It appears from submissions made on behalf of respective parties that there is no claim over shop room in question which is being run by petitioner. 7. Therefore, Officer-in-Charge, Jagatballavpur Police Station being respondent no.4 is directed to provide necessary protection to petitioner so that petitioner can run his business by keeping the said shop room open. 8. If any interested person has claimed right over said shop room in question, in that event that person needs to approach civil court in pursuit of remedy. 9. Writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 2