SANTI PRIYA MUKHERJEE Vs. SURENDRA NATH CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion, the application must fail. The application is by one Santi Priya Mukherjee inter alia for an order for a writ to be issued in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent, the Commissioner of Police, to forbear from intimidating petitioner's employees and staff and/or the clients of his business and/or from interfering with them in any manner and/or interfering with the carrying on the petitioner's lawful business in any manner and to recall forthwith his 'men posted near about the petitioner's said business.

(2.) The petitioner's case> as made out in the petition, is as follows: The petitioner is a lessee of the ground floor and second floor of the premises No. 3, Madan Street' Calcutta and he is the proprietor of the business called 'Nature Cure Home' which provides inter alia for medical and curative aids to patients suffering from rheumatism, gout, nervous breakdown and other allied bodily and nervous infirmities by means of physiotherapy, hydropathy, electrotherapy and neuropathy. For the purpose of the said business petitioner employed at all material times two competent medical men and a sister in charge and fourteen trained nurses both male and female. The petitioner had also to incur expenditure of about Rs. 15,000/-to convert a godown in the groundfloor of the-said premises into an air conditioned apartment, well plastered, coloured and painted and to arrange for electric and water connections and he "fitted up the said business with all necessary modern equipments, appliances and apparatus etc. In or about May, 1948 a raid was made on petitioner's said business premises by the police and the petitioner was prosecuted along with his brother Benoy Mukherjee on various charges The petitioner and his co-accused were thereafter acquitted on or about the 6th September 1948. The petitioner contends that because of the failure of the said prosecution, the police department at Calcutta had been unreasonably and vindictively nursing a grudge against the petitioner though the petitioner's business was above board. On or about the 22nd July 1950, a police party raided several businesses of massage treatment and massage cure and made several arrests and started a number of prosecutions in Calcutta. The petitioner's business was not raided nor was any exception taken in the said business being carried on and no charge was framed and no arrest was made of any of the men employed by the petitioner. The main case of the petitioner is contained in paragraph 10-of the petition which runs as follows:

(3.) In support of the petitioner's case three affidavits have been used before me. One of such affidavits is by one Mr. Bhattacharjee, a medical practitioner and in paragraph 8 of his affidavit he has stated that on the 23rd July 1950 when he was entering into the passage leading to the clinic of the petitioner, a gentleman in plain clothes enquired of him if he was going to the clinic, and his answer being in the affirmative he told him that he is a constable and he had instructions to arrest any one who might attempt to get into the clinic. He thereafter left the premises. Since then he had never been to the said clinic.