##PAGE1##

S/L 11

23.12.2025

Court. No. 25

sourav

WPA 29505 of 2025

Ratan Das

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Megha Dutta

… for the petitioner.

Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Sr. Standing Counsel

Mr. Vivekananda Bose

Mr. Akash Dutta

… for the State.

1. The affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner is taken on

record.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying

for a direction upon the respondent no. 2, i.e., the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Chanchal, Malda to allow the petitioner

and his organization to use the microphones and speakers

during holding the meeting which is scheduled to be held on

02.01.2026 from 13.00 hours to 15.00 hours at Chanchal

Kalambagan, Singia, J.L. No. 68, Block – Chanchal-I, Dag

No. 1649, Khatian No. 4785, Police Station – Chanchal,

District - Malda.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner intends to hold the meeting in the private

property and the person who is the owner of the property

has already given No Objection for holding the meeting. He

submits that on 18.12.2025 by way of email, the petitioner

had applied before the SDO for grant of permission, but till

date the permission has not been granted.

2

4. The petitioner has relied upon Section 34A of the Police Act,

1861 and submits that it is the power of the Magistrate of the

District or any Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of

the First Class, it is necessary to do so for the purpose of

preventing annoyance to, or injury to the health of the public

or any section thereof or for the purpose of maintaining

public peace and tranquility, he may by order prohibit,

restrict, regulate or impose conditions on the use or

operation in any area within his jurisdiction or in any

vehicle within such area of microphones, loudspeakers or

other apparatus for amplifying human voice or for

amplifying music or other sounds.

5. He has further relied upon the judgment in the case of

Himat Lal K. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Police,

Ahmedabad & Anr. reported in 1973 (1) SCC 227 and

submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically

held that the right to hold public meeting under Article

19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d) it is obvious that the State cannot

impose unreasonable restriction, it must be kept in mind

that Article 19(1)(b) read with Section 13 protects citizen

against the State action. It is nothing to do with the right to

assemble on private street or property without consent of

the owner or occupiers of the private property. He submits

that in the present case the petitioner has applied for the

permission to hold the meeting in the private land and the

owner of the property has already given no objection to

conduct the meeting.

6. Per contra, Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned senior

counsel appearing for the State has raised the preliminary

3

objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ

application. He submits that if the contents of the writ

petition along with prayer is read together, the writ petition

is not maintainable before this Court as this Court is not

having the determination to pass any order for inaction or

non-action on the part of the police authority.

7. He further submits that the petitioner has applied for grant

of permission on 18.12.2025 and immediately, on

22.12.2025, the petitioner has filed the present writ

application without giving time to the respondents to

consider the request made by the petitioner for grant of

permission to the petitioner for holding the meeting.

8. In Prayer (b) of the writ application, the petitioner has

prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 2, who is the

Sub-Divisional Officer. In Prayer C, the petitioner has

prayed for an order for directing the authority to ensure that

no hindrance or interference is caused.

9. The contention of Mr. Bandopadhyay, is that if the Prayer

(c) is to be taken into consideration, the only police

authority has to ensure any hindrance or interference when

the petitioner will conduct the meeting and as such