NOOR SABAH ANSARI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be the Mutawalli of the Estate of Sk. Noor Mohammed, hereinafter referred to as the Wakf estate. The petitioner has stated that by a letter being Reference no. 2980 dated 17th December, 2002, the Chief Executive Officer of the board of Wakf requested the petitioner to develop the property of the Wakf estate, situated at 7/1 Ibrahim Road, Kolkata "700 023, which is hereinafter referred to as the said property. The petitioner as Mutawalli undertook the development of the said property. A building plan was prepared and the same was sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in August, 2006. Subsequently, by a letter dated 25th September, 2006 the Chief executive Officer of the Board of Wakf confirmed that the petitioner would continue as Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate.

(2.) THE petitioner thereafter engaged contractors for the purpose of construction. It is alleged that the respondent Nos. 7 to 11 are, in collusion with local hooligans, obstructing the labour contractors. It is also alleged that the private respondents have been threatening the petitioner, the contractor and the labourers. The petitioner claims to have lodged complaints with Ekbalpur police Station. It is alleged that the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf board also requested the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata to take necessary action against the persons who were obstructing construction. It is stated that the petitioner, in apprehension of breach of peace, initiated proceedings under Section 144 (2) of the Criminal Procedure code before the learned Executive Magistrate, Alipore being M. P. Case no. 188/2006.

(3.) BY an order dated 18th October, 2006, the learned Executive magistrate, Alipore directed the Officer-in-Charge, Ekbalpur Police Station to make an enquiry and submit a report by 17th November, 2006, and also to ensure that no breach of peace took place. It is submitted that the police authorities have not complied with the order of the learned Executive magistrate. Ms. Sukla Kabir Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the police were under a statutory duty to protect life and property, from criminals, hooligans and/or vandals. Ms. Kabir Sinha referred to the duties of police officers as provided in Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861 which is extracted hereinbelow: