Disposed¶17

Sushama Ghosh v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC28 Nov 2025WPA/13775/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: eviction of private respondent; representation dated 28 April 2025 to police authority not acted upon; earlier order granting liberty to file fresh representation; proceeding under Section 126 BNSS drawn up; possession allegedly given by petitioner's father for two months; occupant refused to vacate; writ petition disposed of; petitioner given liberty to seek redressal before appropriate forum; no order as to costs; allegations deemed not admitted. Case: WPA 13775 of 2025, Sushama Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & ors.; order dated 28 November 2025 by Suvra Ghosh, J.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner left at liberty to take necessary steps before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance; writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs. ¶17

Sushama Ghosh Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner left at liberty to take necessary steps before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance; writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's representation dated 28 April 2025 to the police authority, seeking eviction of the private respondent from the property in question, had been acted upon, and where the petitioner's grievance could now be redressed.

¶12

Court's answer

No fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending, and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is at liberty to take necessary steps before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.

¶16

Key takeaways

Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPA 13775 of 2025 — Sushama Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & ors. (order dated 28 November 2025; Single Bench, Suvra Ghosh, J.). Acting on an earlier order of this Court that had granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation before the police authority for eviction of the private respondent from the property in question, the petitioner submitted a representation on 28 April 2025 which, per counsel, was not acted upon. Per the representation (read out by counsel for the private respondent), the private respondent was allegedly given possession of the property by the petitioner's father for two months but refused to vacate thereafter. Counsel for the State reported that a proceeding under Section 126 of the BNSS had been drawn up pursuant to the representation. The Court held that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending, disposed of the petition, and left the petitioner at liberty to take necessary steps before the appropriate forum for redressal of grievance. No order as to costs; since no affidavit was invited, the allegations in the petition were deemed not admitted.

Sushama Ghosh v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushama Ghosh v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kingshuk Banerjee Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Abdul Ali Sekh Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dipak Mukherjee and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hasana Begam Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Pratima Bhattacharya Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Budhy Shaw and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.