Sankar Majumder and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sankar Majumder and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief against the impugned order; the Court declined to interfere with the Single Bench's interim direction and left the parties free to agitate their rights in the pending writ petition.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the interim direction dated 16th January, 2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in WPA 22634 of 2024. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found no good and cogent reasons to examine the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Bench, but considering the relationship of the parties - the first appellant being the son of the writ petitioners and the second appellant the daughter-in-law of the writ petitioners - had earlier issued certain directions in the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

The Court made it clear that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order (the Single Bench's interim direction).

Key takeaways

The parties were left open to agitate their rights in the pending writ petition.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Intra-court appeal MAT 185 of 2025 by the private respondents in WPA 22634 of 2024 - the first appellant being the son, and the second appellant the daughter-in-law, of the writ petitioners - against an interim direction dated 16th January, 2025 passed by the learned Single Bench. Pursuant to directions earlier issued in the appeal, the writ petitioners entered the property on 17.3.2025 and unlocked the house with the keys in their possession; the process was videographed and the compact disk was filed with the report of the Inspector-in-Charge, Raiganj Police Station, along with a statement of the first writ petitioner (in regional language) accepting the same, while the writ petitioners' later affidavit took a contrary stand, contending that the keys of the entire premises remained with the appellants. Finding no good and cogent reasons to examine the correctness of the Single Bench's order, and making it clear that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, the Division Bench left the parties open to agitate their rights in the pending writ petition and disposed of the appeal. Coram: T.S. Sivagnanam, Chief Justice and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.; decided 24.03.2025.

24.03.2025 Item No.8 gd/ssd

MAT/185/2025 SANKAR MAJUMDER AND ANR. VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. IA NO: CAN/1/2025

Mr. Jaydip Basu. Mr. Kaustav Chatterjee ..for the Appellants. Mr. Rajarshi Basu, Mr. S.K. Masud ..for the State.

Mr. Satyendra Agarwal, Mr. Surendra Kumar Sharma, Mr. Sudipta Maiti, Mr. Goutam Malik ..for the Respondent Nos.6 and 7.

This intra court appeal by the private respondents in the writ petition is directed against an interim direction dated 16^th January, 2025 in WPA 22634 of 2024.

Though we find no good and cogent reasons to examine the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Bench, considering the relationship of the parties, namely, the first appellant being the son of the writ petitioners and the second appellant being the daughter in-law of the writ petitioners, we had issued certain directions in this appeal.

Pursuant to that, the writ petitioners had entered into the property on 17.3.2025 and they are

2

said to have unlocked the house with the keys which they are holding and the whole process was videographed and the copy of the video-graphed in a compact disk has been filed along with the report submitted by the Inspector-in-Charge, Raiganj Police Station. Along with the police report a statement given by the first writ petitioner is appended which is in regional language which shows that he has accepted the fact that they were able to open the house with the keys which were in their possession. The writ petitioners have filed an affidavit which is contrary to the stand taken by the first writ petitioner in his statement dated 17.3.2025.

The writ petitioners would contend that the keys of the entire premises are still with the appellants since the parties are at loggerheads and attempt to resolve the issue did not fortify.

We leave it open to the parties to agitate

their rights in the pending writ petition.

We make it clear that we are not inclined to

interfere with the impugned order.

With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE

3

(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)