Kankana Das vs State Of West Bengal And Others

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner is a licensee under the private respondent in respect of the disputed premises.

It is further submitted that relevant documents in that regard are lying in the disputed premises, wherefrom the petitioner has been unlawfully ousted by the private respondent.

Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent disputes such contention and submits that the licence had already expired previously.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not be ousted without due process of law from the said premises.

It is further submitted that although the police has registered a First Information Report and the investigation is going on in the matter of the criminal complaint of the petitioner, it is a question of invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India for protecting the life and property of the petitioner, particularly in view of several documents of the petitioner still lying in the premises, which would prove the subsistence of licence in favour of the petitioner.

However, although Article 21 of the Constitution is the governing provision of the Constitution, in the light of which several legislations have seen the light of day, where there are specific statutes operating in the field, a writ court ought not to interfere in the garb of Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly, if alternative fora are available for ventilating such grievances.

The present case involves a civil dispute, at least as regards the dispute raised in the writ petition as to the possessory/licensee rights of the petitioner and the petitioner's allegedly unlawful ouster.

Moreover, it is admitted by the petitioner that the police authorities have no laches as they have already investigated into the complaints of criminal nature.

In the event the petitioner is aggrieved with her alleged ouster from the disputed property, despite having valuable rights therein, it is open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil court, to establish her rights and to get back possession and/or to proceed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, where, even without seeking declaration of her title, she can get back possession subject to the satisfaction of the court regarding the criteria stipulated therein.

In such view of the matter, since the present dispute does not concern the violation of any fundamental right or laches on the part of the police authorities, there is no question of entertaining this writ petition.

Accordingly, W. P. No. 21232(W) of 2019 is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for getting back possession in the event the petitioner is able to establish that the petitioner was in possession on the basis of some right in the first place, and otherwise in accordance with law.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.