- (1.) THE petitioners in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated October 21, 2009 ( assigned to me) are seeking the following principal reliefs:- "b. A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the Respondents and each of them and/or their men, agents and servants to ensure that business of the Petitioner No.1 and Titagarh Jute Mill is not disrupted, obstructed and/or hindred in any manner whatsoever; c. A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the Respondents and each of them and/or their men, agents and servants to ensure that the workmen, employees, visitors and business associates to the mill premises at Titagarh, District 24 Parganas (North) and their free ingress and egress is not obstructed, hindered or impeded in any manner whatsoever;. "
(2.) MR . Dutta appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the issues in the WP are related actually to the prayers (b) and (c) thereof. It has been submitted that the WP has arisen out of an order passed in an application under s.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973; and that the term of the order passed by the Magistrate under s.144 expired long long ago. This has been said with a view to questioning the maintainability of the WP. This is, to all intents and purposes, the principal submission of advocates for all the contesting respondents. Mr. Bandopadhyay appearing for some of the contesting respondents has strenuously argued the question of maintainability of the WP. Mrs. Manot also appearing for some of the contesting respondents has referred to the proceedings initiated by the petitioners before the Civil Court and their unsuccessful attempt to get interim relief therefrom. The question of maintainability of the WP has been raised in the face of an order of the Division Bench of this Court in an appeal arising out of an order of a single Judge and an order of the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench, and saying that there is nothing to show that the single Judge required to decide the WP on merits remaining impervious to the orders of the Division Bench and the Supreme Court is not to entertain the maintainability issue. The maintainability issue precisely is this. Seeking execution of the order of the Executive Magistrate under s.144 CrPC the WP was not maintainable; and in any case order could not be passed in the WP, especially after expiration of the statutory life of the s.144 order, for allowing the petitioners to run the mill enjoying control and management thereof with police help; for the questions concerning right to own shares and manage the affairs of the mill could be and can be decided, if required, only by a Court or forum other than the Writ Court.
(3.) IN the WP an order dated December 22, 2009 was passed. The request for mandatory interim order was refused by the single Judge who, however, directed the police "to maintain peace and tranquility in and around the factory premises in every possible manner. " Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an MAT No.18 of 2010. By an order dated March 3, 2010 the Division Bench allowed the MAT. Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the order of the Division Bench dated March 3, 2010 is quoted below:- "20. In our view, pendency of the disputes about the control over the shareholding in the appellant-company should not result into closure of the mill. It is only if the appellant-company runs the mill, that about 4000 workers will continue to get employment and some amount will be paid towards the outstanding liabilities of the appellant company, towards provident fund, gratuity and employees ' state insurance contributions, so that some day all the outstanding dues may be cleared. This will not be possible if the appellants-company is not allowed to run the mill and to remove the finished goods. 21. The objections, if any, regarding the Statement of Accounts dated 26th Feb., 2010 submitted shall be placed before the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the writ application. The accounts for sale of the remaining finished goods which are entered into R.G. I Register under the Excise Act till 31st March, 2010 shall be produced before the learned Single Judge by 10th April, 2010. " ;