1. Mr. Mitra appearing for the petitioners has prayed for leave to move this art.226 petition as an unlisted motion. Though no case has been stated why the petitioners should be permitted to move the petition as an unlisted motion, Mr. Mitra has submitted that since the petitioners require supply of police guards at their expense immediately so that they may run their factory smoothly and notice of the petition has been given to the State and the private respondents who are represented by their respective counsel, this Court should permit the petitioners to move this petition as an unlisted motion.
2. In view of the above-noted situation, I think it will be appropriate to permit the petitioners to move the petition as an unlisted motion, and hence I grant the leave. After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that the principal grievance of the petitioners is that the Commissioner of Kolkata Police to whom an application dated April 9,2011(at p.132) has been submitted for supply of police guards has not yet considered the request.
3. While Mr. Mitra has submitted that for agitation of the private respondents, some of the persons working in the petitioners establishment, the petitioners are unable to run their factory smoothly even after obtaining an order from the Criminal Court under s.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, Mr. Bhattacharyya appearing for the private respondents has submitted that none of the private respondents has disturbed in any manner the functioning of the factory. Mr. Bhattacharyya has said that in view of the order passed by the Criminal Court under s.144 CrPC this Court should not entertain this petition.
4. Mrs. Sinha appearing for the State has submitted that the Commissioner has not been given reasonable time to consider the application for supply of police guards. In my opinion, it will be appropriate to dispose of the petition directing the Commissioner of Kolkata Police to decide the petitioners application for supply of police guards immediately. The petitioners, in view of the provisions of the relevant regulations, were entitled to apply for supply of police guards at their expense, and once the application was made, the Commissioner incurred an obligation to decide it. Hence, in my view, it cannot be said that because of order passed by the Criminal Court under s.144 CrPC the petitioners are not entitled to maintain this petition.
5. As noted before, in this case a limited issue is involved. The parties to the s.144 proceedings are free to contest the proceedings, if they are still pending. For these reasons, I dispose of the petition ordering as follows. After making enquiry, recording proceedings and hearing all concerned the Commissioner of Kolkata Police (it will mean the appropriate authority) shall decide the petitioners request for supply of police guards at their expense within two days from the date of communication of this order. The decision shall be communicated to all at once.
6. If the Commissioner decides to supply police guards, then order for the purpose shall be issued within 24 hours from the moment of deposit of the requisite amount. If police guards are supplied, then such guards shall not prevent the agitating people from agitating peacefully without causing any disturbance in any manner in the running of the factory. No costs. Certified Xerox.