ORDER This writ petition was moved on October 7, 1985, before this court for issue of appropriate writ against the respondent not to issue any order/notice or take steps under ss 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1947, (Act V of 1947) (hereinafter referred as 1947 Act) at the instance of the writ petitioners, Sree Sree Gopal Jew & Others, who are deities and their Shebaits. 2. In other words, this is a writ application for issue of anticipatory writ against the appropriate statutory authorities, in the matter of passing of order of requisition, although till this Note, no order of requisition has yet been passed by the respondents. 3. Facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows : The petitioners are joint owners of premises No. 3A, Gariahat Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred. to as the said premises). Refugee Handicraft, a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, were sub lessees in respect of one of the showrooms on the ground floor, mezzanine floor and back portion of the first floor of the building at premises no. 3A, Garlahat Road, Calcutta, under one Messrs. Jumbo Traders Private Limited, who were the "lessees", under the petitioners. A decree for ejectment was passed against the lessee, M/s Jumbo Traders Private Limited in favour of the owner in respect of the said premises by this court. An application was made by Refugee Handicrafts, who were the "sub lessees" for selling aside the said decree on the ground that the same was not binding on them, which has been dismissed by this court and another application was made by the owners (being the petitioners herein), for execution of the said decree against the sub-lessee Refugee Handicraft, which has been allowed. The said Refugee Handicrafts sought time to vacate the premises and obtained extension of stay of execution of the said decree. Finally, the trial court has allowed time till December 31, 1987, to Refugee Handicrafts to vacate the said premises and Refugee Handicrafts preferred an appeal from the order of the trial court directing them to vacate, and on an application made in the said appeal, the appeal court had stayed execution of the decree and expedited hearing of the appeal. 4. In these circumstances, the Refugee Handicrafts has prayed for requisition of the premises. 5. 4. In these circumstances, the Refugee Handicrafts has prayed for requisition of the premises. 5. As to the maintainability of the writ petition at this stage, before issuance of any actual order of requisition under Act V of 1947, Mr. S.N. Chowdhury led by Mr. R.N. Bajoria submitted that the writ petition cannot be thrown out as 'premature', in view of the series of decisions of the Supreme Court and of our court us reported, in the case of State of M.P. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006 . 6. In paragraph 15 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “It will hardly be reasonable to say that while the court will giant relief by such command in the nature of an order of injunction where the invasion of a right has been merely threatened the court must still refuse, where the right has been actually invaded, to give the consequential relief and content itself with merely a declaration that the right exists and has been invaded or with merely quashing the illegal order made.” 7. The counsel further referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D.A.V College, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1971 SC 1731 , wherein the Supreme Court has taken the view that a writ petition could be filed when the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner were either threatened or violated. The Supreme Court observed that the writ petition wait maintainable in the court and the aggrieved party was not to wait till the actual threat is taken place, but was entitled to move against the "threatened injury". 8. In this connection, reliance was placed also on the passage in the case of Bankim Chandra Banerjee v. State of West Bengal AIR 1965 Calcutta 463. In paragraph 47 of the said judgment, D. Basu, J. observed as follows :- “A plea has been taken in para 11 of the counter-affidavit that since no distress warrant has actually been issued against the petitioners so far and what has been issued is only a notice to show cause why distress warrant shall not be issued and that, accordingly, the petition should be dismissed as preature has little substance. An application under Article 226 can be presented not only after the petitioner's legal rights have been invaded already but also when they have been threatened with an immediate peil vide Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 603 : AIR 1955 SC 661 . The notices which have been served unmistakably show that the respondents will recover the demand, which is held by me to be illegal, unless restrained by the Court. Hence, there is a threat of immediate injury to the petitioners”. 9. In this context, I may refer to an unreported judgment delivered by me on November 30, 1987 in C.O. No. 16119 (W) of 1986 Sutyabrata Shome & anr. V. West Bengal Industrial Corporation & ors. since reported in 1988 Calcutta Law Times page 95. The said writ petition was moved before the, passing of the actual order of repatriation, in respect of the writ petitioners, who were two in number and I had entertained the writ petition and allowed the same after considering the facts stated in relevant paragraphs 13 and 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition, wherein the respondents had not disputed that the writ petitioners would be repatriated to the parent department rather defended the same, as in the facts of the present case before me. 10. In paragraph 28 of the said judgment, this court observed as follows :- “In my opinion, the writ petition is wholly premature at this stage, as no order of repatriation in respect of the writ petitioners has yet been passed and the petitioners have not yet been directed to join the parent department. At the same time from the order of repatriation dated November 29, 1896, which has been served in respect of Bhabesh Chandra Bhowmick, Assistant Manager Accounts, this court can presume that the respondent Corporation have in their mind an idea to pass such order and this court intends to proceed and adjudicate upon on the basis of existence of such an order and on consideration of the affidavit affirmed on April 27, 1987, filed on behalf of the Corporation”. 11. Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents strenuously argued that the writ petition is not maintainable and is premature and is liable to be dismissed at this stage. 12. 11. Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents strenuously argued that the writ petition is not maintainable and is premature and is liable to be dismissed at this stage. 12. He contended in the first place that the writ petition was moved by suppression of material facts and it was submitted that no anticipatory injunction should have been granted in respect of the "disputed premises", but at the same time has dealt with the writ petition in paragraph 4 and its sub paragraphs of the affidavit-in-opposition, which are as follows :- "a) That premises No. 3A and 2A at Gariahat Road, is a partly eight storied building and the various portion of the said premises have been let out to tenants who are using the same for the purpose of business end other commercial activities or have sub-let to different persons carrying on such, activities. b) The Refugee Handicrafts Department was set up by the Refugee, Relief and Rehabilitation Department with the approval of the Minister, Rehabilitation for the purposes of marketing Dhoties, Sarees, Garments and other crafts produced and manufactured by the Artisans, individual craftsmen and refugee at different work centers and colonies. c) The Refugee Handicrafts was registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1961, in 1962 and the State Government has now three nominees on its Executive Committee. d) The Refugee Handicrafts is a non-profit making body and the committee consists of social workers, nominated members representing Central and State Governments, viz., Handloom Board, Handicrafts Board, Director of Industries, Director of Cottage and Small Scale Industries, besides Bengal National Chamber of Commerce. The Government of West Bengal have the power to terminate the Managing Committee of the Refugee Handicrafts or its office bearer at any time at Government discretion and on the termination of the Managing Committee at the discretion of the Government Management of the Organisation shall fall upon the Government. e) The Refugee Handicrafts, since the year of 1961 has played a major role in helping individual craftsmen/artisans small entrepreneurs and women to market their goods. At the present moment there are over 2,200 artisans who are being financially benefited through Refugee Handicrafts. e) The Refugee Handicrafts, since the year of 1961 has played a major role in helping individual craftsmen/artisans small entrepreneurs and women to market their goods. At the present moment there are over 2,200 artisans who are being financially benefited through Refugee Handicrafts. f) That the supply section of Refugee Handicrafts caters to many Central and State Government and Semi Government department such as Post and Telegraph, Port Trust, Schools, Police department and others, There are 26 employees and 14 women in Weavers’ Section working on piece-rate basis. This organisation has very limited funds and can ill afford to secure a market complex of its own g) The Refugee Handicrafts has its shop cum-showroom and office at the premises in dispute (hereinafter referred to as the said premises’) as stated below:- 1) Shop and Show room about 1450 sq ft. at the ground floor; 2) Office about 1450 sq ft. at the back portion of the first floor; 3) Mezzanine floor about 1100 sq ft h) In the event of the Refugee Handicrafts situated at the said premises is not allowed to operate, then the piece rate workers, more than 2,200 artisans along with the permanent employees working at the Refugee Handicrafts at the said premises will be thrown out of employment and will be deprived of earning their livelihood.” 13. In sub-paragraph (j) of paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, it was alleged that by suppression of material facts, the petitioners had obtained "the decree" on September 5, 1985, from this court and for taking possession of the said premises tenanted to Refugee Handicrafts. The said deponent further admitted that being threatened of being thrown out of the premises by the petitioners, by dint of decree dated September 5, 1985, passed by this court, the Refugee Handicrafts, approached the Cottage & Small Industries Department of Government of West Bengal, for taking such steps as may be necessary to protect the organization. 14. The said deponent further admitted that being threatened of being thrown out of the premises by the petitioners, by dint of decree dated September 5, 1985, passed by this court, the Refugee Handicrafts, approached the Cottage & Small Industries Department of Government of West Bengal, for taking such steps as may be necessary to protect the organization. 14. In sub paragraph (j) of paragraph 4, the said deponent further admitted that the West Bengal Government, after careful consideration has decided that providing accommodation to the Refugee Handicrafts, which is busy in providing livelihood to the weaker section of the Society besides artisans is definitely a "public purpose" and, as such, the portion of the building which is under occupation of the Refugee Handicraft was fit to be requisitioned and the Land and Land Revenue Department was approached in this regard on December 8, 1986, and as the matter was "sub judice", no further action towards requisition would be taken, without the leave of the court during the pendency of the proceedings. 15. Thus from the aforesaid averments made to the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been made abundantly clear, that but for the injunction order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the respondents authorities were bent upon the pass order of requisition, in respect of the disputed premises. 16. Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously argued that this writ petition is entitled to succeed in view of my judgment dated July 7, 1987, in the case of M/s Adarsh Properties Private Limited (since reported in 1987 (II) Calcutta High Court Notes, page 129 wherein inter alia. I have held that order of acquisition could not be passed to trustrate the ejectment decree passed by competent civil court against a tenant, as in the present case. 17. In the said case, a decree was put into execution for obtaining possession of a flat, but the judgment debtor successfully resisted the decree for some years and ultimately the court directed the police to render assistance to the decree holder to obtain possession, and it was at this stage, the unit petition was moved. 18. 17. In the said case, a decree was put into execution for obtaining possession of a flat, but the judgment debtor successfully resisted the decree for some years and ultimately the court directed the police to render assistance to the decree holder to obtain possession, and it was at this stage, the unit petition was moved. 18. In that case, in paragraph 26 of the said judgment, I have held that in view of the accepted legal principles, as well as, the point that the premises was not under the possession and control of the writ petitioners at the relevant point of time, namely, on August 20, 1980, the State Government was not competent, to issue any order of requisition, in respect of disputed 4th floor and further without apportioning the area. 19. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate has also placed reliance on a judgment of this court reported in 1977 (1) Calcutta Law Journal 375, Sandhya Mukhati & Ors. v. Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas & Ors., wherein M M Dutt, J, (as His Lordship then was) had considered whether a premises could be requisitioned, for "the benefit of the members of respondent society”, in terms of Act V of 1947. 20. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment, M.M. Dutt, J, (as His Lordship then was), inter alia, observed that the purposes which were mentioned in s. 3(1) of the Act, are undoubtedly public purposes. The Act also did not make any provision for requisition or acquisition, of land for the benefit of any individual, society or company, like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the absence of any specific provisions in that regard, the requisition of for the purpose of an individual, society or company would not be a "public purpose" for the community. If the disputed land was requisitioned, the same would be distributed amongst the members of the respondent Samity and not to other displaced roadside shop keepers who were not its members. 21. In the result, Justice Dutt, did not sustain the impugned order of requisition in that case for violation of the provisions of the said Act. 22. After placing the aforesaid observations of Mr. Justice Dutt in Sandhya Mukhati's case (supra) Mr. 21. In the result, Justice Dutt, did not sustain the impugned order of requisition in that case for violation of the provisions of the said Act. 22. After placing the aforesaid observations of Mr. Justice Dutt in Sandhya Mukhati's case (supra) Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate submitted that in any event, this court should not take a different view, as in this case also the requisitioning authorities are bent upon to requisition the property of the petitioners for the purpose of accommodating the society, who has suffered a decree for ejectment and accordingly, this writ petition is entitled to succeed on this ground also, apart from the grounds taken in view of my judgment in the case of Adarsh Properties Ltd. (supra). 23. After bearing both the parties at length, and in view of my aforesaid decisions in the case of Adarsh Properties Private Limited and the principles of law as laid down by Mr. Justice Dutt in Sandhya Mukhati's case. I am of the view that the respondents should not be allowed to take recourse to the provisions of Act. V of 1947 in respect of the disputed premises and the present writ petition should be allowed accordingly. 24. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. 25. Let a writ in the nature of Mandamus issue commanding the respondents not to pass any order and/of take any steps in terms of s. 3(4) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (Act. V of 1947) in respect of the disputed premises being no. 3A, Gariahat Road, Calcutta, now known as 3A, Lila Roy Sarani, Calcutta, in any manner whatsoever. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.