Courts must not exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction when efficacious alternative statutory remedies exist for grievances such as police inaction or property possession, nor should they act as an executing court for civil disputes while determining disputed questions of fact.

1. In this intra Court appeal the order dated 13.11.2025 as passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WPA 24934 of 2025 is assailed.

2. By the impugned order the writ Court while disposing the said writ petition directed the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station to restore the possession of the writ petitioner in the flat in question by 15.11.2025 with a further direction to the police authorities to ensure protection to the writ petitioner so that the writ petitioner could stay in the flat in question peacefully till she is evicted therefrom in due course of law.

3. In course of hearing Mr. Sarkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/ private Respondent No. 7 submits before this Court that the learned Single Bench while entertaining a writ petition alleging inaction of the police has practically acted like an executing Court in respect of a decree of a Civil Court in gross disregard to the settled position of law that where there exists availability of alternative remedy, writ Court should refrain from exercising its high prerogative writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted by the appellant/private Respondent No. 7 that the learned Single Bench while disposing the said writ petition entered into disputed questions of facts and thus a serious miscarriage of justice occurred while passing the order impugned and, therefore, the order impugned is required to be set aside.

4. Such contention of the appellant/private Respondent No. 7 is vehemently opposed by the learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner by saying that on perusal of the entire materials as placed before the writ Court, the learned Single Bench was satisfied regarding the inaction of the police authorities in registering the FIR pursuant to the written complaint as made by the writ petitioner on 17.09.2025. It is submitted further that there was no illegality in the order impugned inasmuch as the learned Single Bench while passing the impugned order found that the Respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner has been dispossessed without due course of law and thus, rightly directed the police authorities to restore her possession with a further direction to ensure her peaceful possession in the said flat till she is evicted in due course of law.

5. Placing reliance upon a report dated 20.11.2025 as submitted by the O.C., Nagerbazar Police Station it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent/ State that pursuant to the order impugned the Respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner was put into possession in the said flat by the police authorities which was reduced into writing vide Nagerbazar Police Station, GDE No. 821 dated 14.11.2025.

6. For effective adjudication of the instant lis we at the very outset propose to look to the prayers made by the Respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner before the learned Single Bench in WPA 24934 of 2025 which is quoted hereinbelow in verbatim:

(a) “A writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents no. 1 to 6 their men, agents, servants, and associates and each one of them to take appropriate steps against the respondent no. 7 and 8 by taking necessary steps in respect of complaint dated 17.09.2025 being annexure P-3 of this writ application by registering the FIR against the respondent no.7 and 8 and to prevent them from causing disturbance to possession of the flat purchased by the petitioner and also provide the petitioner with assistance in opening the pad lock installed by the private