A pending eviction suit and status quo order do not, by themselves, bar longstanding Durga Puja.

The petitioner society and its Secretary sought police permission to hold Durga Puja in 2026 on land where the society had organized the Puja for more than fifty years

The society relied on written permission dated 10 September 2026 from respondent no. 7, acting as power-of-attorney holder for respondent no. 6 and other co-owners, and stated that other required permissions had been obtained

Respondent no. 5, a trust’s Shebait, opposed the request, relying on a pending eviction suit, an asserted civil-court status quo order, and its own claim to rights over the land

The police communicated that permission had not been granted and that both the petitioner and respondent no. 5 were in possession of the property

1. Whether the police should be directed to grant the petitioner permission to hold Durga Puja on the disputed premises in 2026, notwithstanding the pending eviction suit and the asserted status quo order

2. Whether the writ court should determine the parties’ competing claims to ownership or other rights over the land while deciding the request for police permission

The Court applied the principle that a writ court considering a request for police permission need not determine disputed ownership or title, which is a matter for the civil court if raised before it

It considered the coordinate Bench’s order dated 6 February 2024 in WPA 25739 of 2023, which had observed that the civil court’s status quo order did not preclude the petitioner from holding the Puja, read alongside the order in WPA 8772 of 2020

It also considered the Division Bench’s order dated 23 September 2024 in MAT 1801 of 2024, which permitted the petitioner to seek permission from respondent no. 5 without prejudice to its rights and contentions

The Court treated the petitioner’s long-standing conduct of the Puja, the pending eviction suit, the police report of possession by both sides, and the permission granted by respondent no. 7 as supporting the petitioner’s request for permission

It found no basis to infer that the asserted status quo order barred the Puja, particularly in light of the earlier coordinate Bench’s order addressing that issue

Nor did respondent no. 5 establish, for the purpose of this writ petition, an exclusive right over the site; the Court distinguished a prior case involving a common area in a residential building

Since the writ proceedings were not the appropriate forum to determine title, the Court left those rights undecided and addressed only the immediate request for police permission

The Court made no determination of the parties’ rights, title, or interest in the land, and disposed of the writ petition