Introduction:

The Calcutta High Court has clarified that the police cannot be treated as the appropriate authority to determine whether a dairy farm or dairy unit is being operated in accordance with law or whether its operation is creating health hazards for neighbouring residents. The Court held that disputes concerning the legality and environmental or health-related impact of dairy operations must be placed before the competent regulatory authority, namely the West Bengal Pollution Control Board.

The ruling was delivered by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya while hearing a writ petition filed by Angurbala Mondal against the State of West Bengal and other respondents. The petitioner approached the High Court complaining about the operation of alleged unauthorised dairy farms or units situated adjacent to her residence. According to her, the activities carried on in those units were causing health hazards and required immediate intervention by the authorities.

The dispute essentially concerned the nature of the authority competent to examine such allegations. The petitioner sought directions to the concerned police authorities to take action against respondent nos. 7 and 8, whom she alleged were operating unauthorised dairy farms or units near her residence. Her grievance was not merely that the units were functioning without proper authorisation, but also that their operation was allegedly affecting the health and well-being of persons living in the surrounding area.

The case therefore raised a limited but important question regarding the role of the police in disputes involving potentially unauthorised commercial or dairy activities. While the police may have powers to investigate offences and maintain law and order, the question whether a particular dairy unit satisfies applicable regulatory requirements and whether its functioning causes environmental or health-related harm may involve technical and regulatory considerations falling within the jurisdiction of specialised authorities.

The State authorities took the position that if the petitioner genuinely believed that the neighbouring dairy farms were being operated in violation of law and were causing health hazards, the appropriate course would be to approach the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. The private respondents also opposed the petition. An additional submission was made before the Court that the petitioner herself was running a dairy farm.

Against this background, the High Court was called upon to determine whether the police could be directed to adjudicate upon the legality of the dairy farms and the alleged health hazards arising from their operation. The Court ultimately concluded that the police were not the appropriate authority for making such a determination and directed the petitioner towards the competent regulatory forum.

The decision reflects an important principle concerning the limits of police authority and the need for regulatory disputes to be examined by specialised statutory or administrative authorities. Rather than treating the police as a general forum for deciding every dispute involving alleged illegality, the Court recognised that questions requiring regulatory or technical assessment should be considered by the authority entrusted with that responsibility.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, Angurbala Mondal, approached the Calcutta High Court with a grievance concerning the alleged operation of unauthorised dairy farms or dairy units by respondent nos. 7 and 8. Her principal allegation was that these units were situated adjacent to her residence and that their operation was creating health hazards.

The petitioner sought intervention from the police authorities and requested that appropriate steps be taken against the alleged unauthorised dairy operations. Her case, as presented before the Court, was that the authorities should not permit dairy farms to operate in a manner that allegedly affects the health and living conditions of neighbouring residents.

The nature of the grievance indicates that the petitioner was concerned both with the alleged lack of lawful authorisation for the dairy activities and with the consequences that she claimed were being caused by those activities. By approaching the police, she sought an institutional response to what she considered an ongoing unlawful activity in her immediate neighbourhood.

From the petitioner’s perspective, therefore, the issue was not simply a private dispute between neighbours. She alleged that the activities of the respondents amounted to the operation of unauthorised dairy units and were sufficiently serious to warrant intervention by public authorities. Her request to the police was based on the contention that the alleged illegality and resulting health hazards required action rather than allowing the activity to continue.

The State authorities, however, opposed the relief sought by the petitioner. Their principal submission was that the police were not the proper authority to decide whether the dairy farms were being operated in accordance with the applicable legal requirements or whether their operation was causing health hazards.

According to the State, if the petitioner was genuinely aggrieved by the operation of the neighbouring dairy farms and believed that they were unauthorised or harmful to public health, she had an appropriate regulatory remedy. She could approach the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, which was the competent authority to examine the grievance and adjudicate upon the relevant issues.

This submission was significant because it placed the dispute within the framework of specialised regulatory jurisdiction rather than ordinary police intervention. The State’s position was, in substance, that the petitioner’s grievance could not be resolved merely by asking the police to determine whether a dairy unit was legally compliant or environmentally and medically hazardous.

The private respondents also opposed the petition. It was brought to the Court’s notice that the petitioner herself was running a dairy farm. This submission was relied upon by the respondents in opposing the petition and formed part of the circumstances placed before the Court.

The respondents’ opposition therefore questioned the basis on which the petitioner sought police action against the neighbouring dairy farms. While the petitioner’s allegations concerned the alleged unauthorised operation and health hazards caused by the respondents’ dairy units, the respondents disputed the relief and drew attention to the petitioner’s own alleged involvement in running a dairy farm.

The Court was thus presented with competing positions. On one side was a resident seeking intervention against alleged unauthorised dairy operations and alleged health hazards. On the other side were the State and private respondents, who resisted police intervention and maintained that the appropriate authority to examine such grievances was the West Bengal Pollution Control Board.

The central issue was consequently not whether the respondents were actually operating their dairy farms unlawfully or whether those activities were in fact causing health hazards. Those substantive questions remained matters to be examined by the competent authority. The immediate question before the High Court was whether the police could be directed to decide those issues.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, after considering the submissions made before the Court, held that the police authority was not the appropriate forum to determine whether the dairy farms or units operated by respondent nos. 7 and 8 were being run in accordance with law.

The Court specifically observed that the police could not decide whether the operation of such dairy farms was causing a health hazard. In clear terms, the Court stated: “Police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide whether dairy farms/units are being run by respondent nos. 7 & 8 in accordance with law or not and whether running of such dairy farms cause health hazard.”

This observation formed the central basis of the decision. The High Court did not enter into the factual question of whether the allegations made by the petitioner were correct. Nor did it make a finding that the dairy farms were lawful or that they were not causing any health concerns. Instead, the Court confined itself to identifying the proper authority competent to examine those allegations.

The distinction is important. A complaint alleging that a commercial or agricultural activity is unauthorised may involve questions relating to licences, permissions, regulatory standards, environmental requirements, sanitation and other technical matters. Similarly, an allegation that an activity is causing a health hazard may require an assessment of factual and technical material. Such matters cannot automatically be converted into questions for determination by the police merely because the complainant alleges that the activity is unlawful.

The Court therefore recognised the institutional limits of police authority. The police have a role in maintaining law and order and investigating offences falling within their jurisdiction. However, that does not mean that the police become the competent authority for determining every regulatory dispute arising from the operation of a commercial establishment.

In the present case, the petitioner wanted the police to determine whether the dairy units were operating legally and whether their operation was causing health hazards. The Court found that such questions fell outside the appropriate sphere of police adjudication.

The High Court instead accepted the position that the West Bengal Pollution Control Board was the proper authority before which the petitioner could place her grievance. The Board, being the relevant regulatory authority, could examine the allegations concerning the operation of the dairy farms and determine the dispute in accordance with its jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Court held that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the operation of the dairy farms, she would have to approach the concerned authority of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board for adjudication of the dispute.

The Court’s direction did not amount to a declaration that the petitioner’s allegations were unfounded. Equally, it did not validate the operation of the dairy farms. Instead, the Court redirected the petitioner to the appropriate statutory and regulatory forum capable of examining the grievance.

This approach also preserves the distinction between judicial review and administrative adjudication. A writ court may intervene where a public authority has acted unlawfully, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or violated legal rights. However, where the foundational factual and technical questions have not yet been examined by the competent authority, the Court may require the aggrieved person to first approach that authority.

The decision is therefore significant from the perspective of jurisdiction and institutional competence. The existence of a grievance does not necessarily mean that the police are the appropriate authority to resolve it. The nature of the grievance determines the authority competent to address it.

In the present case, the allegations concerned two interconnected questions: whether the dairy farms were being operated in accordance with law and whether their operation was creating health hazards. The High Court considered neither question to be one that the police could authoritatively determine. Both required examination by the appropriate regulatory authority.

The Court’s approach also prevents the police machinery from being used as a substitute for specialised regulatory mechanisms. If every dispute concerning the operation of a business or establishment were presented to the police for determination of its regulatory compliance, the distinction between policing and regulatory administration would become blurred. The Court’s observation avoids such an overlap by directing the complainant to the authority specifically equipped to deal with the subject matter.

At the same time, the judgment leaves the petitioner with an available remedy. She has not been left without recourse against the alleged dairy operations. The High Court has simply clarified the appropriate route for pursuing the grievance. The petitioner may approach the concerned authority of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board and place before it her allegations regarding the operation of the dairy units and the alleged health hazards.

The Board can then examine the matter within the scope of its jurisdiction and take such action as may be permissible under the applicable legal and regulatory framework. This ensures that the dispute is considered by an authority competent to evaluate the relevant facts rather than by an authority whose primary functions lie elsewhere.

Another important aspect of the order is that the Court did not allow the writ jurisdiction to become a substitute for an initial administrative inquiry. Where a specialised authority has jurisdiction to examine the grievance, it is ordinarily appropriate for the complainant to approach that authority first, particularly when the dispute requires factual assessment.

The submission that the petitioner herself was running a dairy farm was also placed before the Court by the respondents. However, the Court’s decision ultimately turned on the more fundamental question of competence. Regardless of the competing allegations between the parties, the police were not the authority competent to decide whether the dairy farms complied with law or whether they created health hazards.

Thus, the Court’s ruling was not a determination of the merits of the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents. It was a determination regarding the proper forum for resolving that dispute.

The order in Angurbala Mondal v. The State of West Bengal and Others, WPA 22494 of 2026, consequently reinforces a basic principle of administrative law: a grievance must ordinarily be placed before the authority possessing the statutory or regulatory competence to examine it. Where specialised questions arise concerning the operation of dairy units and their alleged impact on health or regulatory compliance, the police cannot be required to assume the role of the specialised regulator.

The Calcutta High Court accordingly declined to direct the police to adjudicate upon the petitioner’s allegations and held that the appropriate course for her was to approach the concerned authority of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. The decision thereby preserves the respective institutional roles of the police and regulatory authorities while ensuring that the petitioner retains a proper avenue for pursuing her grievance.

The ruling ultimately makes it clear that an allegation of illegality, by itself, does not transform every regulatory dispute into a matter for police determination. Where the issue requires specialised examination of compliance and health-related consequences, the complaint must be taken before the authority legally equipped to make that assessment. In the present case, that authority was the West Bengal Pollution Control Board.