S. B. SINHA, ACJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed gainst a judgment and order dated 26-3-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the appellant herein was summarily dismissed on the ground that the dispute involved is private in nature. ( 2 ) THE fact that the petitioner and the private respondents have been fighting over a permises for a long time is not in dispute. The contention of Mrs. Mukherjee is that the learned trial Judge erred in dismissing the application in limine as the main relief prayed for in the writ application was directed against the Police Authorities. The prayers made by the petitioner in the writ application, inter alia, are :- (A) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and each of them, whether by themselves, their servents, agents, sub-ordinates or otherwise howsoever to act in accordance with law and forthwith; (i) Prevent the commission of cognizable and non-cognizable offences by the private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein and their associates in or around the petitioner's said Plot No. 133, within Mouza 107 at Natna, p. S. Tehatta in the District of nadia and to see that the said private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and their associates do not interfere, obstruct and/or impair the petitioner's fundamental rights to enter into the said petitioner's place of residence and/or reconstruct the tioner's dwelling house thereat and/or to live peacefully at the said place of residence with the petitioner's daughters thereat in any manner whatsoever; (II) Post a police picket at the petitioner's said place of residence and afford adequate police protection to the petitioner and her daughters thereat so that the petitioner and her daughters are able to exercise their fundamental rights to life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution of India including the right to live with dignity and honour therein. ( 3 ) MRS. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel submits that despite orders passed by the Civil court and despite repeated orders passed under section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure by the Magistrate, it had not been possible for her client to enter into her own premises. The learned Counsel contends that keeping in view the decision of Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd. and Anr. The learned Counsel contends that keeping in view the decision of Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. The Home Secretary, government of West Bengal and Ors. 1, and CPA Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. , Employees' union and Ors. v. CPA Consultancy services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors2, the writ application was maintainable. ( 4 ) MR. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the othej hand, submitted that parties are cosharers and in fact while the appellant gifted her own share in favour of her daughters, she intends to encroach upon a building which is in exclusive possession of the private respondent. It has been pointed out that although a decree has been passed, the matter is pending in Second Appeal before this Court being SAT no. 199/97. It has further been pointed out that the last order und^r Section 144 of the code of Criminal Procedure was passed on or petiabout 9-11-94 and the period prescribed under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having expired, no writ is maintainable for enforcing the said order. ( 5 ) MR. Debasish Kargupta, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has drawn our attention to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the resepondent No. 4 affirmed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, that in tital Appeal No. 110 of 1994 disposed of on 25th September, 1996 that no title has been declared in favour of the plaintiff and merely a decree for permanent injunction has been passed. Our attention has also been drawn to the statements made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in opposition which is to the following effect:"complaint was lodged by the petitioner about an incident committed on 5-6-1998 whereby an allegation was made that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 along with others assaulted her and tried to disposses her from her dwelling place. A cognizable case was started under tehatta. P. S. No. 3 dated 6-6-1988 under Sections 147/148/149/448/323/ 380 of Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 7 and others and after due investigation charge-sheet has been submitted in the said case. "in the backdrop of the aforementioned events there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that it is not a case where any direction is required to be issued upon the Police Authorities to perform their statutory duties. "in the backdrop of the aforementioned events there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that it is not a case where any direction is required to be issued upon the Police Authorities to perform their statutory duties. In a given case this court has the jurisdiction to issue a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the Statutory Authority to perform his statutory duty. ( 6 ) IN CPA Employees' v. CPA Consultancy, (supra), a Division Bench of this Court merely held :-"when the 144 proceeding is thus inherently defective, no writ petition can be filed to implement it. In this connection, we respectfully agree with the gle Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dayamoyee Bhatta charjee v. Surya Kanta Sur and Ors. , reported in 1989 Cal. Cr. L. R. 86. In the said decision, Mono) Kumar Mukherjee. J. (as His Lordship then was) was pleased to hold relying on the decision)in Babulaj's Parete's case ( AIR 1961 sc 884 ) that the order of the learned magistrate must set out the material facts of the case to indicate his satisfaction and in the absence of such a recording the proceedings becomes without jurisdiction and consequently the writ petition filed to implement such an order of the Magistrate is also not maintainable. "the same principles will apply in the instant case. Thus, it is not a case where the Police authorities had refused to lodge a First information Report despite the fact that a cognizable offence has been committed. As noticed hereinbefore, even a charge-sheet has been submitted and thus, it is not a case where a direction can be issued upon the police Authorities to perform their statutory duties. ( 7 ) IN Kanoria Jute and Industrial Ltd. (supra), proceeding under Sections 144 and 147 had been going on between the management and the workers. Following the decisions of this Court, a learned Single Judge, inter alia, held that the workers having not acquired a vested right On the raw materials and finished goods lying in the Mill premises, in view of the agreement entered into by the parties, they cannot take law in their own hands and refrain the employer from acting in terms of the rehabilitation scheme framed by BIFR. In the aforementioned situation, the Police authorities were directed to perform their statutory duties to ensure that no breach of peace in and around the Mill takes place The said decision also, therefore, has no application in the instant case. ( 8 ) FURTHERMORE, there cannot be any sindoubt that once the period specified in terms of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expires, no direction can be issued by this court to enforce the same. ( 9 ) IN Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani rajgaria3, the Apex Court has clearly held that private dispute between the parties cannot be the subject-matter of the writ application. ( 10 ) YET recently in Prasanna Kumar Roy karmakar v. State of W. B. and Ors. 4, the Apex court while describing the case at hand as an extraordinary one took exception to this court's exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus in relation to a dispute by and between a landlord and a tenant, as a result whereof, the police evicted the tenant from the disputed premises and the landlord was able to resume possession immediately with police help. ( 11 ) THIS aspect of the matter has also been considered in Kanak Kumar Bar v. State of West Bengal, wherein law has been laid down in the following terms :"it is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the petitioners' main grievance is against the private respondents. The dispute is a private dispute. The petitioner have already obtained an order of injunction. Even assuming that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the learned Munsiff had. jurisdiction to pass the said order dated 19-3-96, we are of the opinion that no writ application will be maintainable for enforcement of the said order. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India cannot function as an Executing Court. It is now well-known that this Court does not interfere in a private dispute. Reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1993 SC 1225 , 1995 (1) CLJ 297 (Bishnu Pada Khanra v. State) and 1995 (2) CLT 235 (Monordas Shah v. State ). "the said decision applies in all fours in the instant case. It is now well-known that this Court does not interfere in a private dispute. Reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1993 SC 1225 , 1995 (1) CLJ 297 (Bishnu Pada Khanra v. State) and 1995 (2) CLT 235 (Monordas Shah v. State ). "the said decision applies in all fours in the instant case. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. M. H. S. Ansari, J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed.