IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH WPA No. 16333 of 2025 Sri C. V. Ranga Venkatesh Rao -Versus-

The State of West Bengal & Ors For the Petitioner : Mr. Joyak Kumar Gupta Mr. Nandadulal Bandyopadhyay Mr. Pranab Halder For the State : Mr. Dipanjan Datta Ms. Rituparna Ghosh Heard On : 30.07.2025 Judgement On : 30.07.2025 Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :

Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that inspite of the direction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), 3^rd Court, Alipore in TS 746 of 2024 and specific directions upon the police authorities having been passed, the police authorities even after being informed are not taking appropriate steps.

The petitioner further complains that a padlock have been affixed which is affecting the right of the petitioner. The petitioner, additionally, is suffering from scarcity of water as obstructions are created to the water pump and the reservoir.

The petitioner has relied upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501 [P.R. Murlidharan & Ors. –vs.- Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar & Ors. Emphasis is laid on paragraphs 18 and

19 of the said judgment, which are set out below:

“18. In the case on hand, various disputed questions arose based on a deed of trust and the facts pleaded by the writ petitioner and controverted by the other side. The High Court should have normally directed the writ petitioner to have his rights adjudicated upon, in an appropriate suit in a civil court. The fact that a writ petitioner may be barred from approaching the civil court, in view of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or some other provisions, is no ground for the High Court to take upon itself, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the duty to adjudicate on the civil rights of parties for the purpose of deciding whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to the police authorities for the protection of the alleged rights of the writ petitioner. A writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to the person of a writ petitioner can be issued, when the court is satisfied that there is a threat to his person and the authorities have failed to perform their duties and it is different from granting relief for the first time to a person either to allegedly protect his right to property or his right to an office, especially when the pleadings themselves disclose that disputed questions are involved. My learned Brother has rightly pointed out that the High Court was in error in proceeding to adjudicate on the rights and obligations arising out of the trust deed merely based on the affidavits and the deed itself. I fully agree with my learned Brother that the High Court should not have undertaken such an exercise on the basis that the right of the writ petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution is sought to be affected by the actions of the contesting respondents and their supporters and that can be prevented by the issue of the writ of mandamus prayed for.

19. A writ for “police protection” so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order.”

It has been a settled proposition of law that, for breach of an order of a civil court it is the civil court itself which can pass directions upon the police authorities. The infraction of any direction passed by the Civil Court cannot be acted upon by the police authorities until and unless there is a specific direction being passed by the said Court.

The subject matter of the present application essentially deals with a private dispute wherein the police authorities have been introduced in order to invoke the jurisdic