J.K. Biswas, J. - (1.) Relying on the document at p.63, Mr Mukherjee appearing for the Petitioners submits that inspite of the fact that the authorities have found that the police should take immediate actions against those whose names were mentioned in the FIR, the police have not taken effective steps, and that as a result the Petitioners are unable to run their business. He has invited me to pass an order directing the Superintendent of Police concerned to supply the Petitioners requisite number of police guards at their expense so that law and order can be maintained in and around the business places of the Petitioners.
(2.) Mr Benerjee, the Government Pleader, appearing for the State has submitted that the Petitioners are virtually seeking enforcement of a decision of the Sub -divisional Officer, Serampur, Hooghly dated July 16, 2011. His further submission is that whether this is a fit case for supply of police guards at the Petitioners' expense is to be decided by the competent authority.
(3.) In view of provisions of the Police Regulations the Superintendent of Police, Hooghly is competent to decide the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case police guards should be supplied to the Petitioners for maintaining law and order in and around their business places. I do not think it is necessary to keep the petition pending for deciding the other questions, especially when, in my opinion, the Petitioners' remedy against the persons who are allegedly committing offences is before the Criminal Court.;