Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 834 (CAL)

RATNA SAHA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/7421/2026 · 2026-04-09

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

04 rkd 09.04.2026 Ct.05 W.P.A. 7421 of 2026 Ratna Saha -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee, Ms. Namrata Das, Ms. Debjani Chakraborty ….for the petitioner. Mr. Pramit Bandopadhyay, Mr. Arka Dutta ….for the State. Ms. Shiuli Saha ….for the respondent no.6 (In Person). 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that petitioner’s husband is the owner of premises situates at Sahapara Kulpi, P.O.& P.S. Kulpi, South 24 Parganas. 3. It is submitted that husband of the petitioner has inherited the said premises and has become the absolute owner. It is alleged in this writ petition that respondent no.6 is not permitting the petitioner and her husband to stay at the aforesaid premises and respondent no.6 is the daughter of the petitioner. 4. Petitioner prays for direction upon the concerned police authorities which would permit the petitioner and her husband to stay at their aforesaid premises. 5. State respondents are represented by learned advocate who has filed a communication dated 7th April, 2026 of Officer-in-Charge, Kulpi Police Station, Sundarban Police District and same is taken on record. 6. It is stated in the communication dated 7th April, 2026 that there is dispute between the petitioner and her daughter being respondent no.6 as a result whereof difficulty cropped up. 7. However, it is fairly submitted on behalf of the State respondent if Court directs necessary arrangement shall be made for stay of the petitioner and her husband at the aforesaid premises. 8. Respondent no.6 appears in person being the daughter of the petitioner. It is submitted that she has no objection if her parents stay at the aforesaid premises. In the same breath an apprehension is also expressed by respondent no.6 that her father may sell out the property which would put the respondent no.6 in difficulty. 9. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties Court finds that there is no impediment in giving direction upon the concerned police authorities which would ensure a situation where petitioner and her husband can stay at the aforesaid premises. 10. Hence, petitioner and her husband will report to the Inspector-in-Charge, Kulpi Police Station, 2 South 24 Parganas on 16th April, 2026 at 12 Noon. 11. If petitioner and her husband report to respondent no.3 on the aforesaid date, necessary arrangement shall be made by the police authorities which would ensure stay of the petitioner and her husband at the aforesaid premises. 12. In addition thereto, respondent no.3 is directed to provide necessary assistance to the petitioner and her husband for a subsequent period of four weeks. 13. In the writ petition though respondent no.6 has expressed concern relating to intention of the husband of the petitioner to sell out the premises in question but that is not the issue here and same is not delved into. 14. The writ petition stands disposed of. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 3