Pyari Mohan Das vs State Of West Bengal And Others

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

The matter had previously been taken up and an adjournment was given for exploring the chance of settlement between the petitioner and the private respondents, which having failed, the matter is being taken up now on merits.

The writ petitioner has raised a grievance that the petitioner has been ousted from his own residence by the private respondents, being his son and daughter-in-law.

Subsequently, the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, by an order dated March 19, 2015, a co-ordinate bench of this Court directed the Officer-in-Charge of the Airport Police Station, Kolkata, to assist the petitioner to get back his alleged possession in respect of the property-in-dispute.

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, pursuant to such direction, the petitioner was reinstated in possession. However, subsequently the respondent nos. 4 and 5 allegedly ousted the petitioner from the premises-in-question. However tragic the circumstances of the case may be for the petitioner, if his version is correct, the present writ petition, seeking a similar relief for restoration of possession to the petitioner is not maintainable in view of a previous writ petition for similar relief having culminated in an order of another co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated January 12, 2017 passed in W. P. No. 30432(w) of 2016, which was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated November 12, 2018, in M.A.T. No. 236 of 2017.

The said order of the learned single Judge kept it open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the provisions of Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and to seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. In the event the action of the private respondents constitutes a penal offence or causes the apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquility in future, it should, according to the said order, also be open to the petitioner to initiate a criminal proceeding against them, if so advised.

It was further directed that lawful orders passed by the said judicial authorities were to be complied with by police authorities in accordance with law.

The petitioner, however, instead of paying heed to the said order of the co-ordinate Bench, as affirmed in in appeal, did not approach the appropriate authority under the 2007 Act, but approached the police authorities again, apparently with a similar prayer for restoration of possession.

In the aforementioned scenario and in view of the specific order previously passed by this Court, the liberty granted by this Court previously is reiterated, thereby permitting the petitioner, irrespective of the result of the present writ petition, to approach the appropriate authority not only under the 2007 Act but also the civil court under the appropriate provision, being either Section 5 or Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, read with Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, in the event the petitioner so deems fit, as per his option. The other liberty to the petitioner, as to being permitted to approach the police in case of any criminal offence being committed against him by the private respondent, remains as it is.

W. P. No. 19490 (W) of 2019 is disposed of in the light of the aforesaid observations.

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.