##PAGE1##

S/L 14

19.12.2025

Court. No. 25

sourav

WPA 28912 of 2025

Tulshi Kumar Das

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee

Ms. Megha Datta

… for the petitioner.

Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Sr. Standing Counsel

Mr. Arka Kr. Nag

Mr. Akash Dutta

… for the State.

1. By an order dated December 18, 2025, this Court

directs the petitioner to immediately by 3 p.m. submit

the information to the concerned police officer and if

the information is received by the concerned police

officer, the same may be forwarded to the concerned

Sub-divisional Officer for taking appropriate decision

immediately.”

2. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed

the supplementary affidavit stating that the order as

passed by this Court was communicated to the S.I.

Pratibindu Das, Hasnabad Police Station and on receipt

of the said communication along with the required

information, the said police officer again made a

communication to the petitioner on 5:04 p.m. asking

the petitioner to furnish the following information:

“i) Provide the details of the dignitaries (name,

phone number, portfolio etc.) who will be on the

dais, along with the protectee. You have just

2

mentioned the number of dignitaries in your

earlier reply.

ii) Provide the details of all the staffs of sound

operators who will get access in the close

proximity of the protectee, to access their

antecedents. You have just mentioned the name

and contact number of sound operators in your

earlier reply.

iii) Provide the details of all the staffs of generator

operator who will get access in the close proximity

of the protectee, the access their antecedents. You

have just mentioned that sound proof generator

will be used in your earlier reply.

iv) Provide the details of all the staffs of decorators

who will get access in the close proximity of the

protectee, to access their antecedents. You have

just mentioned the name and contact number of

sound operators in your earlier reply.

v) In the given sketch map it is not mentioned the

distance between the dais and the barricade of D-

Zone. Provide a fresh sketch map mentioning all

the details of barricades, such as where the single

barricade will be done, where the double

barricade will be done, where the gang way will

be done, what will the be dimension of each block

of the supporters etc.”

3. Considering the communication dated December 18,

2025 at 5.04 p.m. issued by the police officer, this

Court finds that the police officer acted over and above

the order of this Court. This Court has specifically

passed an order on receipt of the information of the

petitioner, the information should be forwarded to the

concerned Sub-Divisional Officer for taking

appropriate decision but instead of sending the matter

3

to the SDO, the police officer has own passed an order

directing the petitioner to submit further information.

4. This Court finds that the S.I. Pratibindu Das wilfully

and deliberately violated the order passed by this

Court. He is directed to appear before this Court on

December 22, 2025 at 2.00 p.m. personally.

5. The State has submitted a report wherein it reveals that

on receipt of information from the petitioner, one S.I.

Ramesh Baidya of Hasnabad P.S. had been to the

Village- Bailani and noticed that the organisers are

preparing the structure of the dais on another land

situated in the southern side of the proposed meeting

venue, i.e., the land of Naba Diganta Sangha Gournd

which also differs from the sketch map provided by the

petitioner earlier. It is also mentioned that the BL &

LRO, Hingalganj has received the report in which it is

mentioned that as per the record Plot No. 157/139

which is the proposed venue of the meeting as per the

statement of the petitioner, the said land does not exist

in the database. In their report the record of land has

also been enclosed.

6. There is no allegation with regard to conducting the

rally. There is an objection with regard to conduct a

meeting and this Court fi