THE INSPECTOR-IN-CHARGE, SERAMPORE POLICE STATION vs ASIT MAZUMDER AND OTHERS

Form No. J(2)
Item No. DL/ 1-2
RANAJIT– A.R. (CT)
ARPAN – A.R. (CT)
In The High Court at Calcutta
CIVIL APPELLATE Jurisdiction
(APPELLATE SIDE)
RVW 233 OF 2026
(CAN 1/ 2026)
IN
WPA 24864 OF 2026
ASIT MAZUMDER
Vs.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
AND
THE INSPECTOR-IN-CHARGE, SERAMPORE POLICE STATION
(APPLICANT)
Vs.
ASIT MAZUMDER AND OTHERS
WITH
RVW 234 OF 2026
(CAN 1/ 2026)
(CAN 2/ 2026)
IN
WPA 24864 OF 2026
ASIT MAZUMDER
Vs.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
AND
JAGANNATH JEW TRUSTEE BOARD AND OTHERS
(APPLICANTS)
Vs.
ASIT MAZUMDER AND OTHERS
……….…….

P a g e | 2
BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
FOR APPLICANT : Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, AAG.
(In RVW 233/ 2026 ) Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Suryaneel Das, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Nandy, Adv.
Mr. Tamoghna Pramanick, Adv.
Ms. Megha Datta, Adv.
FOR APPLICANTS : Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.
(In RVW 234/ 2026 ) Mr. Aditya Mondal, Adv.

FOR STATE : Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, AAG.
(In RVW 234/ 2026 ) Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Suryaneel Das, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Nandy, Adv.
Mr. Tamoghna Pramanick, Adv.
Ms. Megha Datta, Adv.
FOR WRIT PETITIONER / : Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, Sr. Adv. (Via VC)
RESPONDENT NO.1 Mr. Sirsanya Bandhopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Sayan Datta, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Md. Danish Farooqui, Adv.
HEARING CONCLUDED ON : 17.09.2026
JUDGMENT ON : 17.09.2026
SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.:
1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of applicant in RVW 233/2026 is
taken on record. Affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of writ
petitioner in both the review applications are also taken on record.
2. Two review applications are taken up for consideration by placing those
applications at the top of list having perused order of the Hon’ble

P a g e | 3
th
Division Bench dated 11 September, 2026 passed on two intra-court
appeals being MAT 1545/2026 and MAT 1546/2026 . This Court has
made an endeavour to dispose of aforesaid two review applications
taking note of the observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in
th
order dated 11 September, 2026.
3. RVW 233/2026 along with application being CAN 1/2026 are preferred
by Inspector-in-Charge, Serampore Police Station (hereinafter referred
to as “review by police” ) and RVW 234/2026 along with two
applications being CAN 1/2026 and CAN 2/2026 are preferred by
Jagannath Jew Trustee Board (for short, “Trustee Board” ) and its
Pradhan Sebait, President and one member (hereinafter referred to as
“review by Trustee Board” ).
4. In connection with review by Trustee Board an application being CAN
1/2026 is preferred for seeking leave to file review application against
th
judgment dated 10 September, 2026 passed by this Court since said
Trustee Board was not party to the connected writ petition. A case is
made out in the said application that “Mahesh Jagannath Dev’s
Snanpiri Maidan” is owned by said Trustee Board and without formal
permission being accorded to writ petitioner to hold meeting, such
political meeting cannot be convened at said ground. From the
submission made on behalf of learned advocates representing Trustee
Board and other parties, it is indisputable that “Mahesh Jagannath
Dev’s Snanpiri Maidan” is owned by said Trustee Board. Therefore, any

P a g e | 4
meeting/ dharna or cultural programme cannot be held without
permission of the Trustee Board.
5. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate representing Trustee
Board has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported
in (1973) 1 SCC 227 (Himat Lal K. Shah vs. Commissioner of
Police, Ahmedabad and Another) ; drawing attention of this Court to
the observations made in paragraph 35, it is contended that holding
any programme on private land is impermissible in absence of
permission by owner. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
paragraph 35 that Article 19(1)(b) read with Article 13 of the
Constitution of India protects citizens against state action but it has
nothing to do with the right to assemble on private streets or properties
without consent of the owners or occupiers of the private property.
6. It is contended by Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate
representing writ petitioner based on statements made in paragraphs
5(v) and 5(w) of affidavit-in-opposition used in RVW 233/2026 that
“Mahesh Jagannath Dev’s Snanpiri Maidan” was used as a venue on
several occasions in the past for holding political meetings, commercial
fairs and food festivals etc.
7. While making submission on behalf of said Trustee Board convening of
political meetings and other fairs alleged in said paragraphs 5(v) and
5(w) is not ostensibly denied but it is submitted that in terms of
th
resolution adopted by the Trustee Board on 5 July, 2026, decision has

P a g e | 5
been taken not to accord permission for convening any political
programme at the same venue.
8. Since it is demonstrated on behalf of Trustee Board that “Mahesh
Jagannath Dev’s Snanpiri Maidan” belongs to said Trustee Board and
no permission was accorded to hold meeting by the Board but as it was
th
directed by this Court vide judgment dated 10 September, 2026
thereby permitting writ petitioner’s political party to convene a meeting
th
on 11 September, 2026, application being CAN 1/2026 seeking leave
to prefer review application and review by Trustee Board itself are
allowed.
9. In review by police it has been submitted on behalf of applicant that
th
since vide judgment dated 10 September, 2026 this Court permitted
th
writ petitioner’s political party to convene meeting on 11 September,
2026 during specified time at “Mahesh Jagannath Dev’s Snanpiri
Maidan” in absence of permission granted by said Trustee Board and
directed concerned police authority to depute adequate police personnel
for providing necessary assistance to hold meeting, review application
th
is filed against judgment dated 10 September, 2026.
th
10. Moreover, vide order dated 11 September, 2026 Hon’ble Division
Bench granted appellants in aforesaid two intra-court appeals liberty to
file review application on the ground as quoted below:
“Whether a political or a public rally or an agitation or a
Dharna or a Meeting, could have been held on the land

P a g e | 6
belonging to Jagannath Jew Trustee Board, said to be a
private land?”
11. At the cost of repetition, it is recorded that from the submissions it is
found that “Mahesh Jagannath Dev’s Snanpiri Maidan” is owned by
said Trustee Board and taking note of observations made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 35 of Himat Lal K. Shah (supra)
without permission being accorded by said Trustee Board
meeting/rally/dharna or cultural programme cannot be conducted on
private land. Review by police is also allowed.
12. In view of aforesaid observations made on two review applications,
Court is required to consider prayer couched in the connected writ
petition afresh in order to find out whether writ petitioner’s political
party can be permitted to hold a programme on public land or not.
13. Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate representing writ
petitioner on virtual mode submits that writ petition was filed in order
to get permission from the Court to hold a political rally on a part of
G.T. Road, which comes under the jurisdiction of Serampore Police
Station, Hooghly. However, at the same time it is submitted that if it is
found that convening a rally on G.T. Road is not feasible, in that event,
writ petitioner’s political party needs to be permitted to hold a meeting
on a public land. In this regard, reliance is placed on paragraphs 70
and 71 of Himat Lal K. Shah (supra) in order to contend that in terms
of the relevant provisions enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of
India democratic right of a political party needs to be preserved thereby
permitting to hold its programme.

P a g e | 7
th
14. This Court vide judgment dated 10 September, 2026 held while
considering the objections raised on behalf police authority that due to
presence of Walsh Hospital, educational institutions and Fire Brigade
establishment and taking note of width of G.T. Road, political rally on
G.T. Road would cause inconvenience to local residents as a result
whereof writ petitioner’s political party was permitted to hold meeting
on a particular date at particular time following certain restrictions.
Therefore, while considering said writ petition again as two aforesaid
review applications are allowed, Court has to consider the prayer of writ
petitioner’s political party to hold meeting instead of rally that too on a
public land after taking note of contentions to be raised on behalf of
State respondents.
15. Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Advocate General
representing applicant in review by police as well as State respondents
on instruction submits that Serampore Court Ground may be
considered for convening meeting by writ petitioner’s political party on
Sunday or any other public holiday.
16. Taking cue from the submissions made on behalf of State respondents,
th
Court finds that as 26 September being the fourth Saturday in the
month of September, 2026, is a holiday when court will remain closed;
writ petitioner’s political party can be permitted to hold meeting at
th
Serampore Court Ground on 26 September, 2026 subject to following
conditions:

P a g e | 8
i) Writ petitioner shall be permitted to hold meeting at
th
Serampore Court Ground on 26 September, 2026 during
16:00 hours and 18:00 hours;
ii) While convening meeting writ petitioner shall follow
sound limits;
iii) During meeting no inflammatory statements shall be
made leading to communal tension;
iv) Concerned police authority shall depute adequate
number of police personnel to maintain law and order
and to see that no untoward incident takes place;
v) Organizers of said meeting shall not convene any
procession on G.T. Road and shall not block G.T. Road;
vi) Names of ten volunteers and their mobile numbers shall
be provided by writ petitioner to police authority who will
be responsible for conducting meeting strictly in terms of
th
order passed today by 6:00 PM, 24 September, 2026;
vii) Since it is submitted on behalf of police authority that a
th
Z+ category protectee may attend the meeting on 26
September, 2026 and for providing security
arrangements few norms are required to be followed
including keeping a buffer zone in between stage and
congregation and taking note of size of Serampore Court
Ground, meeting shall be held with one thousand (1000)
participants;
viii) For convening meeting writ petitioner shall be permitted
th
to raise one temporary stage on 26 September, 2026
and that will also be dismantled just after the meeting;

P a g e | 9
ix) Inspector-in-Charge, Serampore Police Station is directed
to provide protection thereby permitting organizers of
meeting to hold programme peacefully;
x) Necessary assistance and protection shall also be
provided for permitting electricians and decorators to
take back their items without any hindrance;
xi) Learned District Judge, Hooghly is requested to provide
th
necessary permission for convening the meeting on 26
September, 2026;
17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, judgment passed by
th
this Court on 10 September, 2026 stands reviewed and modified.
18. RVW 233/2026 along with CAN 1/2026 as well as RVW 234/2026
along with CAN 1/2026 and CAN 2/2026 are disposed of in terms of
aforesaid directions.
19. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the
official website of this court.
(SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)