ASHOK KUMAR SINGH : Agarpara Jute Mills Limited & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 October, 2024

Agarpara Jute Mills Limited & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 October, 2024

Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury Mr. J. Ghorai Mr. D. Ghorai Mr. P. Garain Mr. D. Dasgupta Mr. Varun Kothari Mr. A. Agarwalla Mr. B. N. Joshi Ms. D. Mukherjee Ms. Atmaja Bandyopadhyay ...for the respondent no. 7 Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arik Banerjee Mr. B.K. Jain Mr. P. Jain ... ... for the added respondent no. 11 Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar Sing ... ... for the added respondent no.13 Mr. Abhishek Halder Mr. Swadesh Misra ... ... for the added respondent no.14 I. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition raises a significant issue of pathetic economic extortion by the state from the enterprises and industrialists for the consideration of this Hon'ble Court. The primary question pertains to whether, under the given facts and circumstances, the police authorities were justified in facilitating the commission of cognizable offences, such as illegal trespass and theft, by allowing certain perpetrators to unlawfully enter the factory premises owned and possessed by petitioner No. 1 with more than 3000 workers at the instigation of the private respondent no. 6. This act of facilitation by the police raises serious concerns about the breach of law and order, and the propriety of such police actions requires judicial scrutiny.

2. In support of the petitioners' case, reference is made to a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned by the Company Court on January 17, 1986, which is essential to the matter at hand. This Scheme of Arrangement, approved by the Company Court, specifically provided for the transfer of the jute business of Respondent No. 7 (Agarpara Company Limited) to the petitioner no. 1. Pursuant to Clause 1(i) of Part-II of the Scheme, all properties, rights, and powers of Respondent No. 7, except those enumerated in Schedule "A" to the Scheme, were transferred to the petitioner no. 1 without any further act or deed, in accordance with Section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The transfer included the vested interest in properties and assets, barring specific exclusions listed in Schedule "A," such as the Fire Brigade Ground at Mouza Agarpara, Panihati Municipality.

3. The learned counsel also draws attention to the various statutory licenses and documents including the payment to provident fund of the employees for last twenty years held by the petitioner no.1, which affirm their lawful possession of the factory premises. These documents include electricity bills, the Certificate of Enlistment for conducting business at the factory premises located at 28 B.T. Road, GST registration records, and a fire safety license renewal application. Other pertinent records include the factory's municipal assessment, jute importer registration, factory license, and certificates of appreciation from the Ministry of Finance. All these documents underscore the petitioners' rightful ownership and operation of the jute mill at the designated premises.

4. Further, the petitioners have been embroiled in multiple legal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 7 or its affiliates, aimed at undermining the petitioners' lawful rights. In one such instance, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed a petition filed by Respondent No. 7, which sought to assert ownership claims over the jute mill, and this decision was upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the Supreme Court. Additionally, the learned counsel highlights discrepancies and misdescriptions in various documents, such as the Revenue Sharing Agreement (RSA) and the police complaints filed by Respondent No. 6. These documents incorrectly describe the location of the factory premises, leading to confusion and deliberate attempts to mislead the authorities.

5. The petitioners further allege that the police authorities have acted in collusion with the private respondent No. 6, facilitating illegal activities at the factory premises. On the evening of August 3, 2024, a large group of anti-social elements gathered outside the jute mill, intending to forcibly enter the premises. Despite repeated calls by one of the petitioner no.1's directors, one Mr. Shyam Sundar Binani, to the police, the authorities failed to take appropriate action. Instead, the police, accompanied by the Rapid Action Force (RAF), arrived at the scene and actively facilitated the unlawful entry of the miscreants into the factory.

The situation escalated when, under police supervision, finished goods and raw materials were stolen from the premises, and the factory's name was defaced, replacing it with the name of Respondent No. 6, Regent Vinimay Private Limited.

6. The petitioners also point to inconsistencies in the police reports, questioning the deployment of the RAF without proper authorization and the failure to produce video recordings despite orders from the Court. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the police authorities, far from upholding the rule of law, actively participated in the illegalities, as evidenced by the failure to disclose crucial documents and the contradictory statements made in various police reports. These lapses on the part of the police, coupled with the deliberate obfuscation of facts, have exacerbated the petitioner's grievances and necessitated the intervention of this Hon'ble Court.

7. In light of these egregious actions and the abrogation of the rule of law by the police authorities, the petitioner prays for appropriate relief from this Hon'ble Court, including an inquiry into the illegal actions of the police and restitution of the petitioner's rights over the factory premises. The learned counsel submits that the Court's intervention is essential to uphold justice and prevent further illegalities from being committed under the guise of law enforcement.

8. In furtherance of the petitioners' submissions, it is essential to examine the procedural and legal framework governing the deployment of the Rapid Action Force (RAF), as well as its improper application in the present matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deployment of RAF in the case at hand was unwarranted and not in line with the stipulated guidelines under relevant police orders.

9. As per Paragraph 3(a) of Police Order No. 01 of 2018 and Paragraph 5(a) of Police Order No. 03 of 1999, the primary objective of deploying the RAF is to manage large-scale outbreaks of communal and other violence or unprecedented law and order situations, including communal unrest. Additionally, the RAF is entrusted with providing rescue and relief operations to victims of such violence to restore normalcy in affected areas. The petitioners assert that in the current scenario at Agarpara Jute Mill Limited (AJML), no such large- scale communal or law-and-order disturbance occurred that would justify the need for RAF intervention. There were no instances of communal violence or unrest requiring specialized deployment of this force.

10. Further, Paragraph 10(b) of Police Order No. 03 of 1999 explicitly states that the RAF is a specialized force raised for specific purposes and is not to be detailed for routine guard duties or patrolling. RAF units are equipped to handle unique hazards and adversities within society and are characterized by their rapid response, special equipment, peak physical condition, and high operational efficiency, as outlined in Paragraph 6 of the same order. However, the petitioners emphasize that no such extraordinary situation existed at Agarpara Jute Mills Limited herein the petitioner no.1 to warrant RAF deployment, and the force's presence was instead used to achieve the unlawful objectives of Respondent No. 6. The photographs and videos from the premises do not depict any circumstances justifying such extreme measures, thus raising concerns about the real motives behind the deployment.

11. As per the procedural aspect of RAF deployment, Paragraph 10(b) of Police Order No. 03 of 1999 stipulates that, upon arrival in a district, the RAF contingent must report to the Superintendent of Police (SP), Additional SP, or Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) and act under their operational control. However, administrative control remains with the Commandant of RAF. This structure mandates that a written requisition and adequate documentation must be submitted by the district police to call for RAF services. The district police are required to form a written opinion that circumstances exist as per Paragraph 3(a) of Police Order No. 01 of 2018 and Paragraph 5(a) of Police Order No. 03 of 1999, thereby justifying the deployment. This is to be followed by a Command Order issued by the RAF Commandant based on the district police's request and the urgency of the situation.

12. In the present case, no such written requisition or Command Order appears to have been made, raising serious concerns about the legitimacy of the RAF's presence at AJML. The lack of proper documentation underscores the arbitrary nature of the deployment and suggests that the police authorities have acted outside their legal mandate. It is a sine qua non that written authorization must be obtained to seek RAF intervention, and without this, the deployment is legally flawed.

13. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the operational control vested in superior police officers under Paragraph 5 of Police Order No. 03 of 1999 must be exercised strictly in accordance with the specific conditions laid out. In the absence of a legitimate basis as outlined in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said police orders, the decision to deploy RAF cannot stand. The petitioners assert that the conditions precedent for deploying RAF were not met in this instance, and any exercise of power to deploy the force in these circumstances constitutes an abuse of authority. Moreover, the Command Order for such deployment must be in writing to prevent any misuse or arbitrary application of police powers. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays that the improper deployment of RAF be examined by this Hon'ble Court, and appropriate action be taken to address the misuse of law enforcement resources.

14. The scope of the instant writ petition, as reflected in the prayers, demonstrates that the petitioners, despite alleging that police personnel aided and abetted the illegal trespass and forcible entry of outsiders into the jute mill, has primarily sought police protection. The petitioners have consistently requested that the police fulfil their duty to protect the mill, a request that remains unmet. Hereinunder is the complaint dated 04.08.2024 filed by the petitioner No.2 to the police authority herein respondent No. 3 which was not considered:

"Dear Sir, I, Jitendra Nath Choubey, Director of Agarpara Jute Mills Limited having its registered office at 28, B. T. Road, Kolkata, write to you as follows: -

1. As you are aware, we are the owner of Agarpara Jute Mill, situated at 28 B. T. Road, Police Station Khardah, Kolkata- 700 058 have been running the Jute Mill as the owner thereof since 1985,

2. Yesterday evening at about 7.30 PM, around 40/50 anti-social elements gathered at the gate of the Jute Mill and were attempting to forcibly enter the Jute Mill. While the workers of the Jute Mill resisted such anti-social elements, the Police personnel from the local Police Station arrived at the scene. While initially the workers thought that the hooligans would disappear upon seeing the Police but to the utter surprise the arrival of Police further emboldened such anti-social elements who started creating ruckus and finally trespassed into the Jute Mill. To the utter disbelief the Police party which had arrived at our Jute Mill instead of preventing such trespassing started turning a blind eye to such anti-

social elements or stopping them from entering into the Jute Mill. The hooligans ultimately used their muscle power to ensure that our management staffs are all put in a corner and the staff of Baranagar Jute Mill start taking possession over the Jute Mill. Sir, gradually the number of Police personnel started increasing and Police personnel from neighbouring Police Station also started arriving. Rapid action force also arrived at the scene. Our promoter Mr. Ghanshyam Sarda was also at the Jute Mill, who constantly tried to get in touch with the Officers, who refused to talk to him. A SOS WhatsApp. was also sent to you at your Mobile No. 9051217042. An email was also sent by us to your official email id.

3. To the utter dismay, the Police personnel at the Jute Mill made the plan of anti-social successful and in the garb of maintaining law and order, the Police personnel aided and abetted the illegal trespassing and forcibly entering of anti- social elements into the Jute Mill.

4. It later transpired that such anti- social elements were trespassing at the behest of one Mr.Govind Kumar Sarda. Several Officers present at the site were receiving repeated phone calls from Mr. Govind Kumar Sarda.

5. To establish such trespass at around 3 AM name of our Jute Mill as painted on the main gate was also removed and the name of one Regent Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., was painted. A Video showing such illegal activities carried out at 3 AM was also forwarded to your mobile No. Sir, this is a clear case of Police over action. It has later transpired that the Police has acted at the instance of one Regent Vinimay Pvt. Ltd on the basis of certain fabricated documents executed between one Agarpara Company Limited and Regent Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.

6. You will appreciate and also find from the statutory record that since 1985 the Jute Mill is owned by our Company Agarpara Jute Mills Limited and no owner or any other right exist in favour of Agarpara Company Limited.

7. Sir, even now our management people and staffs are being obstructed from entering the Jute Mill. Stock of finished goods and raw materials worth over Rs.20.00 crores is lying inside the Jute Mill. All statutory records of our company are also lying with the Jute Mill. While we find that certain Police personnel are still standing inside and outside our Jute Mill gate, our management staffs are not being allowed to enter the Jute Mill. Sir, hooligans are continuing free movement inside and outside the Jute Mill. Our workers are still inside the Jute Mill, our stock and records are still inside the Jute Mill. We are still in possession of the Jute Mill. However, the Police party at the Jute Mill is now refusing to allow us from entering the Jute Mill on the pretext of some claim made by Regent Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Shockingly, such claim of Regent Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., is being backed by such Police personnel who are without any rhyme or reason guarding our Jute Mill against its own true owner. Sir, the situation is alarming and we request you to immediately look into the matter and ensure that the wrong done at our Jute Mill is forthwith undone.

We also request you to ensure that no finished goods stock or our records are allowed to be removed from our Jute Mill.

                             Least    to    say       that     the   same    would

                             tantamount          to    theft   of    our   property

which is enquired to be protected by you at any cost.

Request you to take immediate and corrective measures at our jute Mill."

15. It is also important to recognize that the incidents of August 3, 2024, have already led to the registration of FIR No. 107/24, dated August 4, 2024, at Kamarhati Police Station by way of a suo moto complaint filed by one S.I. Umesh Choudhury being the S.I. of Kamarhati Police Station at 00.05 hrs. This FIR succinctly describes the events of that day and names the individuals responsible, including Ghanashyam Sharda, Govindji Sharda, and Sailesh Singh. The charges listed in this FIR include offences under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), such as unlawful assembly, obstructing public servants, causing hurt, and criminal intimidation.

16. In light of these facts, it is imperative that the police be directed to complete the necessary investigation in respect of a complaint filed by the petitioner no.2 on August 4, 2024, the FIR no. 107/ 2024 dated August 4, 2024 and FIR no. 109/ 2024 dated August 5, 2024 in a timely manner. Both the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the new provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), contain adequate safeguards to ensure a proper investigation. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, there cannot be a second FIR for the same offence, and any further information must be treated as part of the original FIR. This reinforces the petitioners' claim that their complaints have not been properly addressed, and further investigation must proceed.

17. It is well-settled that an FIR should not be subjected to technical hair-splitting and is not required to contain exhaustive details of the incident. Its primary function is to set the investigative machinery in motion. The petitioner, in this case, has consistently sought this very relief--proper police action in response to a serious offence, which has so far been unjustifiably delayed. The Hon'ble Court is urged to disregard any claims of factual inaccuracies in the FIR and instead focus on the need for thorough and immediate investigation.

18. In conclusion, the petitioners pray for the restoration of status quo ante prior to the criminal trespass on 03.08.2024, along with the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under a retired judge, and the registration of an FIR to address the criminal trespass and theft that occurred on August 3, 2024. The continued failure of the police to act in this matter, despite multiple complaints and serious allegations, only reinforces the need for judicial intervention to ensure justice is served.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 13:

respectfully submits that Respondent No. 13 is the promoter and owner of Agarpara Jute Mills Limited (Petitioner No. 1) and exercises control over the affairs of the company. In addition to this, Respondent No. 13 holds the position of promoter company. By virtue of an Arbitral Award dated 18th July 2009, the ownership, management, and control of Respondent No. 7 was vested in Respondent No. 13. Although Respondent No. 13's brother has filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge the award, the challenge only pertains to alleged errors in calculation and valuation, without disputing Respondent No. 13's ownership. No stay on the operation of the award has been granted to date.

20. It is further submitted that certain illegally appointed directors of Respondent No. 7 have repeatedly attempted to interfere with the management of Agarpara Jute Mills Limited.

However, these attempts have been consistently thwarted by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), this Hon'ble Court, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as demonstrated by various judicial orders (NCLT Orders dated 26th April 2019, 9th January 2017, and 6th April 2017, and the Supreme Court order dated 23rd October 2017). Despite the failure to disturb the lawful management through legal channels, Respondent No. 6, along with the illegal directors of Respondent No. 7, has resorted to utilizing police overreach to forcibly trespass into the premises of Agarpara Jute Mills Limited.

21. It is submitted that the actions of Respondent No. 6 are being actively facilitated by the Respondent Police Officials, in direct contravention of the aforementioned judicial orders. Despite clear rulings from the NCLT, this Hon'ble Court, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Respondent Police Officials are attempting to recognize the title of the illegally appointed directors of Respondent No. 7 over the jute mill premises, in apparent exchange for extraneous considerations. Such conduct by the police authorities raises grave concerns regarding their motive and impartiality in this matter.

22. The ill-intentions of the Respondent Police Officials become apparent from the allegations made by SI Umesh Chowdhury in his complaint, wherein it is falsely alleged that Respondent No. 13 was present at the jute mill premises at or after 9:02 p.m. on 3rd August 2024. This allegation, forming the basis of Kamarhati Police Station Case No. 107 of 2024, is contradicted by verifiable evidence. Respondent No. 13 had left his office at 21-A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata at around 8:40 p.m., which is substantiated by CCTV footage from the office premises. Furthermore, the CCTV footage from the jute mill and mobile tower location data clearly establish that Respondent No. 13 entered the mill between 9:23 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., disproving the false timeline presented by the police. A detailed account of the movement of Respondent No. 13 on 3rd August 2024 is set out in paragraphs 17(a) to 17(k) of the exception filed against the police reports.

23. The allegations of a disturbance at the jute mill during the time of Respondent No. 13's presence, as claimed by SI Umesh Chowdhury, are also unfounded. The Sub-Inspector, despite claiming the presence of a ruckus, curiously managed to identify the persons involved, including Mr. Ghanshyam Sarda, and noted the absence of Mr. Govind Sarda, while identifying Mr. Shailendra Singh as his agent. It is important to highlight that no injuries were reported, and the only record of the alleged ruckus exists in the dubious complaint lodged by SI Umesh Chowdhury. This complaint appears to have been concocted to provide a facade of legitimacy to the illegal attempt by Respondent No. 6 to trespass into the jute mill.

24. It is submitted that the admissions made by Respondent No. 6 in their affidavit, wherein they acknowledge the ongoing process of obtaining necessary permissions and licenses, further demonstrate that they could not have moved any material or operated the jute mill without complying with the legal requirements, including GST registration. The stock of raw jute and finished goods within the mill belongs solely to Respondent No. 13 and the petitioner company, with crores in raw materials, finished goods, and the premises itself. The details of this stock are available in the record.

25. The primary issue before this Hon'ble Court is whether the police officials facilitated the unlawful trespass of anti-social elements and agents of Respondent No. 6 into the Agarpara Jute Mill premises on 3rd August 2024. It is submitted that the police officials acted in clear violation of the Police Act, 1861, and the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943. The General Diary entries produced by the police have been manufactured post facto to justify their unlawful actions, as these entries were not made in the prescribed B.P. Form No. 65 and contravene Regulation 377 of the Police Regulations. Moreover, despite repeated opportunities provided by this Hon'ble Court, the police have failed to produce any command order authorizing the deployment of the Rapid Action Force at the mill premises, as required under Regulation 146.

26. The illegal acts committed by the police in collusion with Respondent No. 6 cannot be allowed to stand, as they threaten to undermine the rule of law. The judiciary, as the guardian of constitutional values, must ensure that such actions, which are not backed by any statutory authority, are struck down to restore faith in the legal system. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Vishnunarayan & Associates (P) Ltd., reported in (2002) 4 SCC 134, has categorically held that possession can only be taken through lawful means and not by force, in the absence of any specific statutory provision. Furthermore, in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553, the Court held that disputed questions of fact do not necessarily bar the jurisdiction of the writ court.

III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.9 and 10:

27. The Respondents nos. 9 and 10, also representing worker unions at the Agarpara Jute Mill, submitted that on August 3, 2024, a group of local hoodlums and miscreants gathered outside the mill with the intent to illegally enter the premises. In response, the workers quickly sealed off all access points to prevent the intruders from entering. However, when the police arrived, accompanied by a special unit of the RAF, they insisted that the gates be opened, allowing the miscreants to enter. The unions highlighted that the police were acting on the basis of a revenue-sharing agreement presented by respondent no. 6, which related to a different property (8/11 B.T. Road), while the jute mill is situated at 28 B.T. Road. They accused the police of facilitating the illegal trespass, damaging property, and allowing the miscreants to paint over the mill's signage. Furthermore, the unions expressed concern for the safety of the workers and their families, who reside on the mill premises, and requests this Court to direct the police to restore order and remove all illegal trespassers. IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.11:

28. The principal workers' union of Agarpara Jute Mill (AJML), representing over 2,000 workers, outlined the events of August 3, 2024, when anti-social elements gathered outside the mill. Upon noticing the assembly, the workers alerted the management, and efforts were made to contact the police. However, the respondent highlighted that the anti- social elements, supported by the police, illegally trespassed into the mill on August 3, 2024. Despite pleas from the workers of the petitioner company, the police did not stop these actions. The respondent argued that the illegal takeover was carried out under false pretences and through forged documents. They requested this Court's intervention to remove the trespassers and restore the status quo.

V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.12:

29. The respondent emphasized the involvement of the police in facilitating the illegal possession of the jute mill by anti-social elements on August 3, 2024. They argued that the respondent no. 6 had no legal right to the mill and lacked the necessary licenses and resources to run it. Moreover, the workers asserts that their provident fund is been paid by the petitioners for the last twenty years. The respondent further submitted that the police's actions were motivated and in collusion with respondent no. 6. They called for a special investigation into the police's overreach in the matter.

VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.14:

30. The respondent argued that the workers are a necessary party to the writ petition since their livelihoods are directly affected by who controls the mill. They highlighted that Regent Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. (herein respondent no. 6) lacks the necessary licenses and resources to run the mill, which endangers the workers' employment. The respondent asserted that the police acted in collusion with respondent no. 6 to facilitate the illegal takeover of the mill and requested the court to protect the workers' interests.

                       VII.      SUBMISSIONS              OF          THE         POLICE

                       AUTHORTIES:

31. The submission of the Police Authority, being the state respondents, is detailed herein based on the investigation reports and the unfolding of events at Agarpara Jute Mill on August 03, 2024. The State has filed three reports dated August 7, 2024, August 12, 2024, and August 13, 2024. Collectively, these reports outline the role of the police on the night of the incident. On August 3, 2024, at approximately 8:02 p.m., the Officer-in- Charge (O.C.) of Kamarhati Police Station, Subrata Halder, received multiple missed calls from a mobile number belonging to Shyam Sundar Binani, representing himself as the Director of Agarpara Jute Mill Ltd. Mr. Binani informed the O.C. that there was a major altercation between two groups of 100-150 people within the mill premises, requesting immediate police assistance. Following this, SI Umesh Choudhary lodged a suo-motu complaint, diarized in the General Diary of Kamarhati Police Station (GDE No. 105) corresponding to FIR no. 107/2024, detailing the same information. A police team led by SI Umesh Choudhary, along with other personnel, was immediately dispatched to the mill.

32. Upon reaching the site at approximately 9:02 p.m., the police encountered a large, unruly mob inside the mill premises, estimated to be between 150-200 people, armed with dangerous weapons such as iron rods and lathis. The police observed that the mob was led by mill owner Ghanashyam Sharda and an individual named Sailesh Singh, who was acting as an agent for another owner, Govind Sharda. The reports clarify that any alleged trespass or unlawful entry had taken place before the arrival of the police, who immediately took steps to restore order. SI Umesh Choudhary, assessing the severity of the situation, requested additional backup, including the deployment of the Rapid Action Force (RAF), to prevent further escalation.

33. Concurrently, the police were notified of a separate incident involving the death of an individual. This information was relayed by the Deputy Superintendent of the College of Medicine, Sagar Dutta Hospital, and was entered in the Kamarhati Police Station's General Diary (GDE No. 93) on the same day. The Officer-in-Charge, already dealing with the situation at the mill, requested the ACP of Belghoria to deploy RAF personnel. Under the ACP's direction, the RAF was mobilized to assist the police in managing the situation at the mill. The police officers, along with RAF reinforcements, arrived at the mill and tried to persuade the mob to vacate the premises. Despite multiple warnings and requests, the mob refused to disperse, prompting the police to apply mild force to clear the area. A police picket was subsequently established at the mill to maintain law and order.

34. The police reports confirm that the initial disturbance and alleged trespass occurred before the police's arrival, and by the time they reached the scene, the situation had devolved into chaos. The timeline of the events, as documented in the General Diary Entries, and the suo-motu complaint filed by SI Umesh Choudhary, clearly show that the police were not present during the initial entry of the alleged trespassers. Instead, they arrived after the situation had escalated into a violent confrontation.

35. The claims made by the writ petitioner regarding the time and manner of the alleged trespass are inconsistent with the facts documented in the police reports. In the writ petition, the petitioner asserts that around 7:00-7:30 p.m. on August 3, 2024, approximately 40-50 anti-social elements gathered at the mill gate, attempting to forcefully enter the premises. However, the petitioner alleges that the police arrival emboldened these individuals, leading to a trespass shortly thereafter. The petitioner's timeline contradicts his own communication--an email sent at 11:20 p.m. on the same night which states that the anti-social elements were still merely "trying" to enter the mill at 7:25 p.m.

36. With regard to the involvement of the Rapid Action Force (RAF), the petitioner's claims are minimal and unsupported by substantial evidence. The only mention of the RAF's presence comes in the form of a single sentence in paragraph 18 of the writ petition. No further details regarding the RAF's engagement or active role in the situation are provided in the pleadings, nor is there any corroborative evidence that RAF forces played a significant role in restoring order beyond their presence at the scene. The police reports substantiate that the RAF was deployed on the orders of the ACP, Belghoria, in compliance with Bengal Police Regulations, but the RAF was not actively engaged in the confrontation with the mob.

37. The allegations regarding the defacement and painting of the main gate of the jute mill, purportedly carried out with the assistance of the police, are equally unfounded. It is submitted that the petitioners make much of this allegation during oral arguments, yet the basis for this claim is vague, and the petition per se only briefly mentions it, which has been affirmed as "derived from records" without any specificity or accountability taken by the deponent, one Jitendra Nath Choubey being the petitioner no.2. Furthermore, the reliance on photographs and videos to support these allegations is problematic due to issues with their authenticity, as the deponent himself has refrained from certifying their veracity, and they do not meet the statutory requirements under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 for admissibility as electronic records.

38. In conclusion, the submission of the police authorities demonstrates that the alleged unlawful entry and trespass took place prior to the arrival of the police, who acted promptly to restore order under difficult circumstances. The inconsistencies in the petitioner's claims, combined with the lack of credible evidence regarding the RAF's involvement and the alleged defacement of the mill's gate, further weaken the petitioner's case. As such, this Hon'ble Court should refrain from delving into these disputed factual issues and allow the appropriate statutory authorities to adjudicate the matter.

VIII. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NO. 6:

39. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 submits that after reviewing the writ petition filed by the petitioners it is evident that the petition lacks both legal and factual merit. It is contended that the petition, under the pretence of addressing police inaction, is in fact an attempt by the petitioners to establish rights, title, and interest in the Agarpara Jute Mill. Additionally, the petitioners seek to dispossess Respondent No. 6 from the said jute mill, despite the fact that the possession of the mill was lawfully obtained by Respondent No. 6 through due process of law from Respondent No. 7. The counsel further places on record certain relevant facts and documents which unequivocally demonstrate that the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

40. It is submitted that Respondent No. 7 is the rightful owner of the said jute mill, along with the adjoining properties, including a riverside bungalow, orchard land, fire brigade ground, godowns, warehouses, and other lands not forming part of the jute mill. The total land area under the possession of Respondent No. 7 amounts to approximately 59 acres, of which the jute mill comprises 4 acres. The learned counsel submits that the Record of Rights (LR) clearly reflects Respondent No. 7 as the lawful raiyat of the entire 59 acres, including the jute mill. Further, the counsel draws the Court's attention to the Master Data of both Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 7, which have been obtained from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

41. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 also submits that a Revenue Sharing Agreement was duly executed between Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on the 1st of August, 2024, under which Respondent No. 6 lawfully took possession of the said jute mill on the 3rd of August, 2024. It is emphasized that the possession of the jute mill was peaceful and without any disturbance. Respondent No. 6 has made no retrenchments and has continued operations in the mill, running two shifts per day and intending to increase operations to six days per week.

42. The counsel further submits that Respondent No. 6 is in full compliance with all legal requirements, and all necessary licenses and registrations are being obtained. The agreement is in the process of being duly registered, and the requisite stamp duties and registration fees are being paid in compliance with the law. A query slip dated 6th August, 2024, has already been generated. Respondent No. 6 is also bearing the costs of running the jute mill and has settled all running liabilities, including electricity charges from 1st July, 2024, and wages for the labourers and managerial staff for the month of July 2024.

43. Additionally, the counsel submits that Respondent No. 6 is in the process of ascertaining and addressing various statutory dues, including Provident Fund, Employees' State Insurance, and taxes under the West Bengal Sales Tax, Central Sales Tax, CGST, Central Excise, and Customs Duty, which collectively amount to several crores of rupees. Respondent No. 6 reserves its right to disclose relevant documents at the appropriate stage.

44. The learned counsel also highlights the disturbance caused by a gang of hooligans sent by one Ghanshyam Sarda, who attempted to forcibly take possession of the jute mill on the 3rd of August, 2024. Respondent No. 6 immediately lodged a complaint with the local police at Kamarhati Police Station being FIR no. 198/2024 dated August 5, 2024.

45. The counsel further informs the Court that Respondent No. 6 has filed Title Suit No. 821 of 2024 before the Learned 3rd Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Barasat, along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.

46. In conclusion, the counsel for Respondent No. 6 submits that the possession of the jute mill was lawfully obtained without any assistance from the police, and the mill continues to operate smoothly under the control of Respondent No. 6. The counsel prays for the dismissal of the writ petition on the grounds mentioned above, as it is without merit and an attempt to misappropriate the lawful possession of Respondent No. 6.

                       IX.    SUBMISSIONS         ON   BEHALF      OF   THE

                       RESPONDENT NO. 7:

47. Respondent No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as 'ACL') asserts that the actual possession of the jute mill at the disputed property was with AJML, the writ petitioner No.1, as until August 3, 2024. X. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.8:

48. The Respondent No. 8, representing another worker's union at the Agarpara Jute Mill, argued that the writ petition primarily concerns the jurisdiction of this Court to assess police inaction or overaction during the incident on August 3, 2024. The respondent emphasized that, as per the petitioners' own admission, they continue to possess the mill, thus negating any claim of dispossession. If there is a claim of dispossession, the appropriate forum for resolving such disputes is the civil court, not the writ court. They further argued that the petitioners are attempting to convert a writ petition into a civil suit, which is not permissible under the law. Additionally, the respondent submitted that this case primarily involves a private dispute between businessmen, and the writ court should not interfere in such matters and relied on legal precedents, such as Shri Sohan Lal vs. Union of India and Samir Ali Mallick vs. The State of West Bengal, to support their position that the petitioners should seek civil remedies rather than writ relief.

                       XI.    REPLY   OF   THE      PETITIONER       TO     THE

                       SUBMISSIONS       MADE       ON    BEHALF     OF     THE

                       STATE RESPONDENTS:

                    49. The   State   Respondents        have   placed    undue

emphasis on prayers (c) and (d) of the writ petition to support their contention that the reliefs sought are limited to "Agarpara Jute Mill" and do not extend to the petitioner. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed both in fact and in law. Prayers (c) and (d) must be read in conjunction with prayer (b), wherein the petitioner clearly seeks police protection to ensure that the business of the petitioner at Agarpara Jute Mill is not obstructed or hindered in any way. A plain reading of the petition, especially paragraphs 24 to 36, makes it abundantly clear that the references to "Agarpara Jute Mill" in prayers (c) and (d) are directly related to the manufacturing and business activities conducted by the petitioner at the mill. In fact, prayer (d) explicitly mentions the "mill premises of the petitioner and Agarpara Jute Mill," further underscoring that these prayers cannot be viewed in isolation or separate from the petitioner's interests.

50. Moreover, the State Respondents' submission regarding the FIRs registered on the basis of complaints made by various parties, including Umesh Chowdhury, SI of Kamarhati P.S., the petitioner, and Respondent 6, is misleading. The reality remains that no FIR has been registered based on the petitioner's specific complaint dated August 04, 2024. This complaint detailed serious allegations of criminal trespass facilitated by police personnel, including the deployment of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) and other officers, in collusion with private respondents and their affiliates. Despite the gravity of the allegations, no FIR has been lodged to date, even though the Barrackpore Police Commissionerate, Kamarhati P.S., and Khardah P.S. were duly notified.

51. Further, the State has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the inconsistencies within the Third Police Report dated 13.08.2024, particularly regarding the deployment of the RAF. The General Diary Entry (GDE) attached to the report records that the Officer-in-Charge (O.C.) of Kamarhati, along with the RAF and ACP of Belghoria, departed the police station at 20:30 hours to address the law-and-order situation in Dasubabu Bagan area. However, there is no corresponding GDE entry confirming the RAF's arrival at the police station or their movement to the mill premises. This glaring omission undermines the O.C.'s claim, made on the report, that the ACP, who was already present at the police station, accompanied him and the RAF to the mill premises upon receiving a request from SI Umesh Chowdhury. Moreover, despite this Hon'ble Court's order dated 08.08.2024 directing the State to place on record the order for RAF deployment, none of the three reports submitted by the State disclose such an order.

52. The second police report, dated 12.08.2024, stated that two communications were sent to the petitioner and Respondent 6 requesting CCTV footage of the incident from 03.08.2024. However, the Third Police Report, dated 13.08.2024, makes an inconsistent claim that the O.C. visited the mill premises on 08.08.2024 to personally collect the footage, though he was allegedly denied access at that time. Yet, the O.C.'s requisition to Respondent No.6 for CCTV footage was sent on 05.08.2024, well before the Court's order on 08.08.2024, raising further doubts about the integrity of the police's handling of the investigation.

53. Additionally, discrepancies in the requisitions sent to the petitioner and Respondent 6 regarding the CCTV footage reveal further inconsistencies. The communication dated 05.08.2024, addressed to Respondent 6, requests footage from 8:00 PM on 03.08.2024 to 2:00 AM on 04.08.2024, while the notice sent to the petitioner on 10.08.2024 requests footage from 7:30 PM on 03.08.2024 to 4:00 AM on 04.08.2024. Notably, the requisition sent to Respondent No.6 also includes the phrase "your factory," which aligns with the O.C.'s description of Respondent No.6 as the "present management" in the Third Police Report. This suggests a possible bias in favor of Respondent No.6, which remains unexplained by the State.

54. Furthermore, the petitioner has made explicit allegations of police complicity in the commission of cognizable offences in the petition. These allegations have not been denied by the police authorities through an affidavit, nor have the veracity of the photographs annexed to the first Supplementary Affidavit and the Combined Exception to the three police reports been questioned. During submissions, the learned AAAG objected to the admissibility of these photographs, citing Section 63 of the BSA and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1. However, this judgment clearly holds that certificates under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63(4) of the BSA, 2023) can be produced at any stage before the commencement of trial. At the stage of FIR registration, no such certificate is mandatory. The requisition for CCTV footage issued to the petitioner on 10.08.2024 does not demand any certificate under Section 63(4), further demonstrating that the State's objection is without merit.

55. The State has taken contradictory positions in this matter by questioning the admissibility of photographs annexed to the petition while relying on electronic records such as WhatsApp messages exchanged between Respondent No.13 and the Commissioner of Barrackpore Police Commissionerate. Given that these WhatsApp messages have not been denied, and the State does not dispute their validity, they must be accepted under Section 63 of the BSA, 2023. The State cannot selectively apply standards of admissibility to electronic records based on convenience.

56. In conclusion, the State Respondents have failed to provide credible explanations for the serious lapses in their handling of this case, including inconsistencies in the police reports, not registering the petitioners' complaint dated August 04, 2024, and their contradictory stance on electronic evidence. Therefore, the petitioner respectfully submits that the arguments advanced by the State Respondents are devoid of merit.

                       XII. REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE

                       SUBMISSIONS           MADE          ON      BEHALF        OF

                       RESPONDENT NO. 6:

57. In response to the submissions made on behalf of Respondent No.6, the petitioner respectfully submits that Respondent No.6 has largely adopted the arguments advanced by the State Respondents, with a particular emphasis on the complaint dated 05.08.2024. This complaint was registered as Kamarhati P.S. Case No.109 of 2024, wherein the respondents attempt to create the impression that the incident in question occurred at 7:30 PM, at which time police personnel were not present. Based on this timeline, the private respondents argue that no case of police overaction or inaction can be made out by the petitioner.

58. However, upon close examination of the said complaint, it becomes clear that it pertains to the theft of seven trucks loaded with jute bales and finished products valued at over ₹1.5 crores. The complaint's first paragraph mentions a serious incident that took place on 03.08.2024, around 7:30 PM, which had already been brought to the notice of police authorities. Therefore, the private respondents' argument based solely on the timing of the incident is untenable. The said complaint must be read in conjunction with the petitioner's earlier complaint dated 04.08.2024, which was sent via email to the Barrackpore Police Commissionerate, Kamarhati P.S., and Khardah P.S. Despite disclosing the commission of cognizable offences by the private respondents in collusion with police authorities, no FIR has been registered on the basis of the petitioner's complaint. This omission clearly establishes police inaction and complicity.

59. It has been the petitioner's consistent case that Respondent Nos.6 and 7, in collusion with the police, attempted to forcibly take possession of the mill. At no point has the petitioner claimed to have been dispossessed of the mill, a fact that further weakens the respondents' defence. In their submissions, Respondent No.6 has also failed to deny the material averments made in the writ petition and supplementary affidavit. The veracity of the photographs submitted by the petitioner, which clearly depict the actions of the respondents, has not been challenged either. By failing to contest these material pleadings and documents, Respondent No.6 invites the application of the doctrine of non-traverse. This doctrine presumes that unchallenged facts and documents are accepted as true, and the respondents' lack of specific denials further supports the petitioner's case.

60. In their written notes of submission, Respondent No.6 relies on several judicial pronouncements concerning the enforceability of schemes of arrangement that are not duly stamped under the Indian Stamp Act. They cite Emami Biotech Ltd. and Another v. State of West Bengal as reported in 2012 SCC Online Cal 1425, affirmed by the Division Bench in ITP Limited, 2012 SCC Online Cal 9802. However, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court had already considered these judgments in Castron Technologies Limited v. Castron Mining Limited, 2013 SCC Online Cal 12914 (2013) 5 CHN 553 (DB). The Division Bench held that the mere non-payment of stamp duty does not invalidate a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the Company Court, and such an arrangement cannot be recalled on that basis. The judgment in Castron Technologies (supra) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, further diminishing the relevance of Respondent No.6's arguments.

61. Additionally, Respondent No.6 relies on the judgment in Smt. Sheta Dutta v. Birpur Fishermen Co-operative Society, 2018 SCC Online Cal 8725, however, this judgment is inapplicable to the present case. The facts in that matter related to disputes over title to a "beel," which were already pending before the West Bengal Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal (WBLRTT). The Division Bench in that case merely allowed the parties to continue their claims before the WBLRTT, which bears no resemblance to the issues in the current petition.

62. Similarly, Respondent No.6's reliance on Hari Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 733 is misplaced. In that case, the Supreme Court denied a prayer for a CBI investigation, holding that in cases where no action is taken on a police complaint, the complainant may file a private complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. However, this judgment was delivered before the landmark Constitution Bench ruling in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, which established that police officers are under a mandatory duty to register an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence. In the present case, the petitioner's complaint clearly discloses cognizable offences, yet no FIR has been registered, making Lalita Kumari directly applicable.

63. Respondent No.6 also relies on the judgments in Aleque Padamsee's case, (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 7 SCC 768, which suggest that remedies for non-registration of an FIR lie in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. However, in light of the Lalita Kumari (spura) judgment, which mandates FIR registration when cognizable offences are disclosed, these precedents are no longer of relevance. The petitioner's complaint dated 04.08.2024 clearly disclosed such offences, yet no action was taken by the police. Therefore, the petitioner respectfully submits that the arguments advanced by Respondent No.6 are without merit.

64. Furthermore, Respondent No.6's reliance on Court on its Motion, WP(Crl.) No.796 of 2007 concerning the admissibility of electronic evidence is similarly unconvincing. This case dealt with sting operations, court witnesses, and contempt proceedings, and was later modified by the Supreme Court in R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2010) 8 SCC 106 and subsequently dealt with again in R.K. Anand, (2013) 1 SCC 218. None of these cases bear any resemblance to the present case. In view of the contradictory and inconsistent positions taken by Respondent No.6 regarding the timing of their alleged possession of the mill, the respondent's affidavit ought to be disbelieved entirely.

XIII.OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS MADE BY THIS HON'BLE COURT:

65. Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties at length.

66. This Court finds it imperative to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) based on the cumulative failures and questionable conduct of the state police authorities. This decision is driven by the Court's concern that the state police had compromised the integrity of the investigation due to their alleged involvement in facilitating the unlawful activities at Agarpara Jute Mills and their subsequent failure to follow legal procedures.

67. The petitioner had repeatedly raised allegations of collusion between the State police and private Respondent No.6, who were accused of orchestrating the unlawful trespass at the mill. Despite these serious allegations, the state police did not act on the petitioner's complaints in a timely or effective manner. This was evident in the inconsistent reports filed by the police, the failure to take swift action during the events of August 3, 2024, and the subsequent lack of investigation into the complaint submitted by the petitioner on August 4, 2024. The inaction and procedural lapses suggested that the state police were not operating with the impartiality required in such a case.

68. This court had given explicit directions to the state to provide crucial evidence, such as the CCTV footage during the relevant time, the State repeatedly failed to produce this evidence despite being given three opportunities to do so. The evasive stance taken by the state--claiming they did not know whether the body cam of the RAF personnel were switched on, and providing no explanation for the absence of CCTV footage from the place of occurrence--demonstrated a lack of transparency and accountability. This failure further weakened the credibility of the state police's investigation.

69. No documentation was provided by any party, including the state police, to demonstrate how and when the petitioner allegedly handed over possession of the jute mill to the respondents, despite the submission of extensive affidavits. This absence of key documentation cast further doubt on the legitimacy of the respondents' claims and reinforced the petitioner's argument that the trespass was unlawful and facilitated by the police. The lack of such critical evidence undermined the state's case and indicated that the investigation had not been conducted with the thoroughness or neutrality required.

70. It is crucial to note that the entry of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) into the premises of Agarpara Jute Mill was unauthorized and contrary to established protocols. According to Police Order No. 03 of 1999, the RAF is a specialized unit deployed only in situations involving large-scale communal disturbances, violent riots, or other severe threats to public order. The purpose of such a deployment is to restore peace and manage high-risk scenarios that local law enforcement may not be adequately equipped to handle. In this case, however, no such law-and-order emergency existed at the time of their deployment. Therefore, the question persists as to how the RAF was allowed to enter the mill premises without any valid written requisition or Command Order, which are mandatory under the procedural guidelines. Paragraph 10(b) of Police Order No. 03 of 1999 clearly states that the RAF cannot be deployed for routine guard duties or any activities outside of their specialized function unless specific conditions are met. The state's failure to produce key video evidence, created the impression that the police were actively suppressing facts to protect the respondents and cover up their involvement. Given the serious allegations of police complicity, the court concluded that the state police had compromised the integrity of the investigation and could not be trusted to pursue the case impartially.

71. Citing previous legal precedents such as Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 20212 SC 1515 which mandates the registration of an FIR when a cognizable offense is disclosed, the court emphasized that the state police had a duty to investigate the petitioner's complaints thoroughly. The failure of the police to act on the petitioner's August 4, 2024 complaint, despite clear evidence of cognizable offenses, highlighted the need for an independent investigative body.

72. In light of the serious lapses in investigation and the overall compromised role of the State police, this Court directs that the case be transferred to the CBI. This transfer includes the case diary, the complaint filed by the petitioner on August 4, 2024, and all relevant documents in relation to the FIR no. 107/2024 dated August 4, 2024, FIR no. 109/2024 dated August 5, 2024 and FIR no. 198/2024 dated August 05, 2024. The Officer-in- Charge Kamarhati Police Station along with the investigating officers of the FIRs registered at Kamarhati Police Station are directed to handover all the relevant documents such as the case diary, CCTV footage (if any), and body cam recordings (if any) to the officer designated by the CBI within two (02) days from today. The court recognized that only an impartial and independent investigation, free from the influence of local police authorities, could ensure that justice may be served. CBI's involvement was deemed essential to restore faith in the legal process and ensure that all parties involved were held accountable for their actions.

73. Leave is granted to the petitioner to add CBI as a party respondent in this matter and amend the cause title. A copy of the informal paper book be served upon C.B.I.

74. The investigating officer of the CBI is to file report before this Court positively on November 11, 2024 at 2.00 P.M.

75. Let this matter again appear in the list on 11th November, 2024 at 2.00 P.M. under the heading "To be mentioned."

76. In the meantime, interim order granted on 6th August, 2024 shall continue till 15th November, 2024 or until further order, whichever is earlier.

77. Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 prays stay of operation of this order.

78. Prayer for stay of operation of this order is considered and rejected.

79. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly obtained from the official website of this Court.

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH

Saturday, November 8, 2025

Agarpara Jute Mills Limited & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 October, 2024

Agarpara Jute Mills Limited & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 October, 2024

Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj

Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj

No comments:

Post a Comment