JUDGMENT :

(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) :

1. The petitioner, a practicing Advocate of this Court, has filed the present petition against the march organized by respondent No. 5 Bharatiya Janata Party towards State secretariat ‘Nabanna’ to manifest protest against the alleged failure of the Government of West Bengal in controlling corruption. It is alleged in the petition that the participants in the rally were mobilized from the neighbouring areas and bordering States and that State secretariat building Nabanna is a high security zone and the protest had disrupted the business due to closure of Mangla Hat. It has been vaguely alleged in the petition that during the procession loss was caused to the vehicles, shops etc. Further allegation is that the respondent No. 5 political party in the year 2020 had also organized similar protest where clashes had taken placed between the supporters of respondent No. 5 and the police authorities and the police had to resort to lathi charge to maintain law and order. Further allegation is that the respondent No. 5 is the ruling party in the Centre, therefore, the respondent No. 1 Union of India is responsible for the conduct.

2. On the basis of the above averments, petitioner has made a prayer to direct the investigation by an independent agency and constitute a Committee to assess the damage and call for a report relating to eruption of alleged violence.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned ASG that the petitioner is connected with the ruling party in the State, therefore, he cannot be permitted to raise political issue and earlier petitions filed by the petitioner have been rejected on this ground and the petition lacks in sufficient particulars and even today a number of petitions having political colour filed, at the instance of the petitioner, are in the list of this Court.

4. The petitioner has submitted that permission to hold the rally was denied and in spite of that the respondent No. 5 had held the rally. In support of his submission he has referred to the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Headquarters dated 10.09.2022 and even dated order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Howrah. He has also placed reliance upon paragraph 56 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta vs. Union of India and Another reported in AIR 1982 SC 149.

5. Learned Advocate General has also submitted that similar issue is involved in WPA(P) 470 of 2022 (item no. 33) wherein a report has been called.

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection about maintainability of the petition and perused the record.

7. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 11th of February, 2021 passed in WPA(P) 53 of 2021 in the matter of Ramaprasad Sarkar vs. Union of India and others which was a petition filed by the present petitioner had noted that the petitioner is a member of Calcutta High Court Trinamul Law Cell, the political party in power in the State of West Bengal, therefore, raising of a political issue directly connected with a political party in power against other political party was not found to be a larger public interest but a private interest litigation. The Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 11th of February, 2021 while dismissing the WPA (P) 53 of 2021 at the instance of the present petitioner had held that:

“15. On perusal of the aforesaid facts it is clearly established that the present writ petition has been filed by none else than a practicing advocate in this court, who is a member of the Calcutta High Court Tribunal Law Cell, the political party in power at present in the State of West Bengal.

16. Filing of a writ petition by an advocate, who is directly connected with a political party in power raising issues against other political party during election time cannot be said to be in larger public interest. It can be said to be a private interest litigation.”

8. In WPA(P) 308 of 2022 in th