ANJALI SEN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application for vacating the interim order of injunction and / or for further necessary orders filed by the added respondent has been considered by this Court. This case has really a chequered background. The writ petition has been filed by one sm. Anjali Sen claiming to be the owner of flat no. 9b, naba Kailash Cooperative Housing Estate at 55/4, Bally gunge Circular Road, calcutta. 19. It is alleged in the writ petition that in the month of April, 1986 the petitioner had let out the said flat for a period of two years to indian Market research Bureau having their office at 30, Bondel Road, Calcutta-19 and the alleged lease expired on the 30th April, 1988. It was stated further in the writ petition that the respondent no. 4 Srijeeb Moitra of 30, Bondel road, is a man desperate in nature having good, connection with the antisocials and some influential persons to occupy forcibly the petitioner's flat by applying physical force. It was further stated that on 2. 5. 88 at about 8. 30 p. m. that when the petitioner was living in the said flat the respondent no. 4 along with 4/5 unknown persons forcibly entered. into the flat and tried to take possesion of the said flat, but at the intervention of some local friends and well-wishers they could not take possession of the said flat. Consequently the petitioner moved the court of the learned executive magistrate at Alipore on 6. 5. 88 for drawing up proceedings against the respondent no. 4 and others in order to restrain them from entering into the said flat in question and the said application was registered as Case No. M. P. 802 of 988- According, to the petitioner the Learned Magistrate directed the officer-in-charge, Bally gunge Police Station to see that no breach of peace takes place in the meantime and further- directed that no wrongful activities are done against the petitioner in respect of prayer marked "a", of the petition. Since respondent no. 3, Officer-in-charge, Bally gunge Police Station was found not implementing the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, the petitioner moved a writ petition on 10th May, 1988. Upon hearing the learned lawyer tor the petitioner, Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee J. was pleased to entertain the writ petition and directed that the matter will appear in the list as 'application' one week after the Summer Vacation and an interim order was passed directing the police authorities to carry out the order passed by the learned executive magistrate on 6. 5. 88. Mr. M. Haque, a learned Advocate of this Court, was appointed as Special Officer to see that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is carried out and to take steps for implementing the order. The Special Officer agreed to perform the duty without any remuneration.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY by an order dated 1. 6. 88 the Indian Market Research bureau was added as respondent no. 5 in the main writ petition. Leave was granted to the added respondent to. 5 to file an application for vacating the interim order. It will appear from the said order dated t. 6. 88 that Mr. Nilava Mixta was appointed as 3oint Special Officer along with Mr. M. Haque. There was a direction that both the Special Officers shall visit the flat in question and shall make inventory of the articles and things that may be found in the flat in question and that such inventory shall be made by the 3oint Special Officer after giving notice to both the parties. It was made clear by a subsequent order made on the same day that in case of difficulty the Special Officers will act jointly or separately. By another order dated 3une 2, 1988 the matter was taken on the day's list on mentioning \and direction was made that the Special Officer Mr. M. Haque and the 3oint Special Officer Mr. Nilava Mitra shall act jointly and if not possible, severally and they will visit the flat in question with police help and for that purpose the Officer-in-charge, Bally gunge Police Station was directed to render all possible assistance to the Special Officer and/or the Joint special Officers in terms of the order passed by this Court. It was, however, made clear that at the time of visit by the Special Officers the petitioners as well as the added respondent may be represented by their own representatives and may also be assisted by lawyers of their own.

(3.) AGAIN the matter was considered on June 3, 1988 and it will appear from the order that the Special Officers visited the flat in question and made some inventories and found that some of the articles and things are still there belonging to the added party. Leave was granted to the learned lawyer for the added party to take steps in the matter as regards the articles in question and the order was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.