Dd 26 09.06.2026 [Bench Id:266046] IntheHighCourtAtCalcutta CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA(H)/42/2026 RAM CHANDRA SINGH VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Mr. Asim Kr. Niyogi, Advocate … … For the Petitioner Mr. Rajdeep Maxumder, AAG … … For the State 1. Petitioner seeks a direction to trace out his missing son. 2. Son of the petitioner went missing in May, 2003. Missing diary was lodged on May 27, 2003. Police investigation resulted in the police submitting a report before the jurisdictional Court. Jurisdictional Court accepted the police report. All of this occurred in 2016. 3. In 2026, the petitioner is before us, seeking further investigation into the missing son. 4. State is represented. 5. We are not minded to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. As noted above, the son of the petitioner went missing in May, 2003. Police submitted final report on April 19, 2016. Police spent 13 years to trace out the missing son of the petitioner. Police was not 2 successful therein. Petitioner also took no steps with regard to the order passed by the jurisdictional Court accepting the final report submitted by the police in 2016. 7. There is no explanation before us as to the delay occasioned by the petitioner. Moreover, there is no new material before us, to take a different view than obtaining in the police report dated April 19, 2016.

8. WPA(H)/42/2026 is, therefore, disposed of. [Debangsu Basak, J.] [Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.]

Dd 26 09.06.2026 [Bench Id:266046] IntheHighCourtAtCalcutta CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA(H)/42/2026 RAM CHANDRA SINGH VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Mr. Asim Kr. Niyogi, Advocate … … For the Petitioner Mr. Rajdeep Maxumder, AAG … … For the State 1. Petitioner seeks a direction to trace out his missing son. 2. Son of the petitioner went missing in May, 2003. Missing diary was lodged on May 27, 2003. Police investigation resulted in the police submitting a report before the jurisdictional Court. Jurisdictional Court accepted the police report. All of this occurred in 2016. 3. In 2026, the petitioner is before us, seeking further investigation into the missing son. 4. State is represented. 5. We are not minded to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. As noted above, the son of the petitioner went missing in May, 2003. Police submitted final report on April 19, 2016. Police spent 13 years to trace out the missing son of the petitioner. Police was not 2 successful therein. Petitioner also took no steps with regard to the order passed by the jurisdictional Court accepting the final report submitted by the police in 2016. 7. There is no explanation before us as to the delay occasioned by the petitioner. Moreover, there is no new material before us, to take a different view than obtaining in the police report dated April 19, 2016.

8. WPA(H)/42/2026 is, therefore, disposed of. [Debangsu Basak, J.] [Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.]