- (1.) THE Court : Mr Bhattacharya appearing for the petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated July 13, 2012 submits as follows. The private respondents and their associates have been obstructing the petitioner's factory gate. As a result, the petitioner is unable to carry on its usual business. The petitioner's repeated requests have failed to move the police. The police officers to whom the representations were made were under an obligation to make inquiry and remove the obstructions.
(2.) MR Bhattacharya submits that the petitioner did not submit any application requesting the Superintendent of Police, Hooghly to supply police guards at its expense. He has said that if this Court permits, then the petitioner will immediately make the requisite application for supply of police guards at its expense. He has informed that notice of the case has been sent to the respondents, and that service return has not yet been received from the private respondents. Since the petitioner has not applied to the Superintendent of Police seeking supply of police guards at its expense, I think it will be appropriate to dispose of the WP permitting it to submit the requisite application and asking the Superintendent of Police to make inquiry and give the decision immediately. For these reasons, I dispose of the WP ordering as follows. If the petitioner files an application seeking supply of police guards at its expense so that with the help of the guards it may carry on its usual business, then after making necessary inquiry, recording proceedings and hearing all concerned the Superintendent of Police shall give the requisite decision within 72 hours from the moment of receipt of the application. The decision shall be served on all concerned at once. No costs. Certified xerox.;