ORDER The petitioners premises had been requisitioned in 1942. The petitioners filed a writ petition claiming de-requisition of the premises on the basis of s. 10(a) and 10(b) of the West Bengal Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) (Second Amendment) Act, 1986. By an order dated 15.4.1992 during the pendency of the first writ application the First Land Acquisition Collector requested the petitioners to receive vacant possession of the premises. The Premises could not be handed over on that date as the State of West Bengal had declared a holiday on that day. The First Land Acquisition Collector gave a second notice requesting the petitioners to receive vacant possession of the premises on 6.5.1992. However, no possession was handed over on that date. The first writ application in which the grievance was limited to the non release of the premises from requisition was dismissed as infructuous as the State Authorities had in fact issued the orders of release in respect of the premises in question. As no prayer had been made for possession, no such relief was granted in the first writ application. 2. The petitioners have now filed a second writ application challenging the refusal of the State Authorities to make over the possession of the premises to the petitioners in spite of repeated notices given by the State Authorities to the petitioners to take such possession. It is the petitioners’ case that a portion of the erstwhile requisitioned premises was used by the respondent no. 4 as Office cum godown. The respondent no. 4 has been served with a copy of the application and has not thought it fit to appear and pray either for directions to file affidavit or to contest the proceeding It may, therefore, be assumed that he has no objection to the prayer as made by the writ petitioners. 3. As far as the State respondents are concerned the only submission made by them is that the State respondents are not responsible for handing over of possession of the disputed premises to the petitioners and that it was sufficient if only a release order was issued. It is also stated that this court should not pass an order directing eviction of any occupant for which other proceedings may be available in other forum. 4. In my view, none of the contentions of the State respondents can be sustained. It is also stated that this court should not pass an order directing eviction of any occupant for which other proceedings may be available in other forum. 4. In my view, none of the contentions of the State respondents can be sustained. The Act itself provides that it is the State Authorities who take over possession from the citizens whose land is sought to be requisitioned for the purpose of a Requiring Authority. Therefore, if for the purpose of requisition the State Government itself takes physical possession, the necessary corollary is that for the purpose of de-requisition it is the State Government which should also hand over the de-requisitioned premises to the citizens from whom such possession had been taken in the first place. 5. Secondly, there is no direct nexus between the citizen and the Requiring Authority or the person for whom any requisition may have been made. The rent is paid by the State Government to the owner of the premises. Therefore, any person who is continuing in occupation of the premises is continuing under the State Government and it is for the State Government to see to it that the premises are returned to the petitioners in the same condition in which the possession was obtained. 6. Thirdly, the State Government bas itself issued orders to the petitioners directing the petitioners to take vacant possession. Having itself offered to make over possession of various dates, it does not lie in the mouth of the State Government to contend at this stage that it was not part of its duty to make over such possession to the petitioners concerned. 7. The act of requisition and the act of acquisition have created a special right in the State Government to deprive it citizen of his/her property in the light of the fact that the property will remain with the State Government for the purpose of the public. The State Government cannot now turn round and say that while the property was in the State Government's custody, the same is being kept by the persons who are otherwise unauthorised. 8. It is well-established that the question of alternative remedy, if any, is certainly not a bar to the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with any issue. It is a self-imposed restraint which the Court should exercise in certain circumstances, for example, where disputed questions of fact are involved. 8. It is well-established that the question of alternative remedy, if any, is certainly not a bar to the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with any issue. It is a self-imposed restraint which the Court should exercise in certain circumstances, for example, where disputed questions of fact are involved. In the circumstances of this case, I do not think that it would be a proper exercise of jurisdiction to relegate the petitioners to any alternative remedy which may be available to them under law. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing the respondent no. 4 to vacate the premises within a period of a fortnight from the date of service of the signed copy of this dictated order upon him failing which the respondent no. 3 is to see that this order is implemented forthwith. The respondent no. 10 and 11 will render all assistance to the respondent no. 3 or his duly authorised representative for carrying out this order. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy 'of this dictated order on usual undertaking. Application allowed with directions.