05.05. 20.08.2026 (D/L)(D/L) CT.CT. NO.NO. 0505 (ARPAN-A.R.CT.) In The High Court at Calcutta CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 27233 OF 2025 SANDEEP KRISHNA ROHATGI VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLKATA POLICE FORCE AND OTHERS …………… Mr. Sandeep Krishan Rohatgi …For Petitioner (In Person) Mr. Aritra Das, Adv. …For Respondent No.7 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Petitioner appears in person and submits that necessary directions are required to be given upon concerned police authority to take steps. 3. Respondent no.7 is represented by learned advocate. 4. However, on perusing the prayer couched in the writ petition, it appears that petitioner has prayed for supply of certain documents by the Bank authorities and for compensation due to damage caused to the car of petitioner. 5. In answering query of this Court whether any complaint is lodged before the police authority ventilating his grievance or not, a document is shown dated 11th March, 2020 addressed to Hare Street Police Station, Kolkata. 6. After preferring such representation dated 11th March, 2020 writ petition was filed on 26th November, 2025, which is precisely after a period of five years, seeking direction upon the Bank authorities to supply [2] documents and claiming compensation for damage caused to petitioner’s car.

7. It is not demonstrated before this Court what are the steps which are required to be taken by the concerned police authority. 8. Hence, present writ petition is not entertained and same stands dismissed. 9. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

05.05. 20.08.2026 (D/L)(D/L) CT.CT. NO.NO. 0505 (ARPAN-A.R.CT.) In The High Court at Calcutta CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 27233 OF 2025 SANDEEP KRISHNA ROHATGI VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLKATA POLICE FORCE AND OTHERS …………… Mr. Sandeep Krishan Rohatgi …For Petitioner (In Person) Mr. Aritra Das, Adv. …For Respondent No.7 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Petitioner appears in person and submits that necessary directions are required to be given upon concerned police authority to take steps. 3. Respondent no.7 is represented by learned advocate. 4. However, on perusing the prayer couched in the writ petition, it appears that petitioner has prayed for supply of certain documents by the Bank authorities and for compensation due to damage caused to the car of petitioner. 5. In answering query of this Court whether any complaint is lodged before the police authority ventilating his grievance or not, a document is shown dated 11th March, 2020 addressed to Hare Street Police Station, Kolkata. 6. After preferring such representation dated 11th March, 2020 writ petition was filed on 26th November, 2025, which is precisely after a period of five years, seeking direction upon the Bank authorities to supply [2] documents and claiming compensation for damage caused to petitioner’s car.

7. It is not demonstrated before this Court what are the steps which are required to be taken by the concerned police authority. 8. Hence, present writ petition is not entertained and same stands dismissed. 9. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)