The police authorities are not justified in putting a lock to the shop premises without any legal basis or justification.

Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - ARTICLE 226 - BOMBAY POLICE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 39 - UNLAWFUL LOCKING OF SHOP PREMISES - COMPENSATION - POLICE AUTHORITIES PUTTING A LOCK ON THE SHOP PREMISES AND RETAINING THE KEY WITH THEM WAS NOT JUSTIFIED - THE ACT OF THE POLICE TO PUT LOCK TO THE SHOP PREMISES WAS TOTALLY UNWARRANTED AND UNJUSTIFIED - THE PETITIONER WOULD BE ENTITLED TO GET COMPENSATION FROM RESPONDENTS.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner approached the court for restoration of his right under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India in respect of the premises in dispute and compensation for unlawful locking of the shop premises. The police had put a lock on the shop premises and retained the key thereof with them, claiming that there was a likelihood of breach of public peace.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the act of the police to put lock to the shop premises was totally unwarranted and unjustified. There was no justification or warrant for the police to take such a step of locking the shop premises. The police have now returned the key of the shop premises to the petitioner, but the fact remains that for a period of about one year, the shop premises remained under lock and thereby the petitioner and his partners could not carry on their business of selling cloth.
Issues: Whether the police authorities were justified in putting a lock to the shop premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the act of the police to put lock to the shop premises was patently illegal. The contention that the said action was taken in exercise of the powers under section 39 of the Bombay Police Act is without any basis because admittedly there was no order passed by any authority to take any such step.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner and his partners for the unlawful locking of the shop premises.

JUDGMENT:---Heard learned Advocates for both the parties. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached for restoration of his right under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India in respect of the premises in dispute. He has further claimed compensation for unlawful locking of the shop premises w.e.f. 17-3-1998. It is the petitioner's case that the shop premises bearing H. No. 152 situated in Tofkhana Bazar, Cantonment, Aurangabad were taken on lease in 1996 by his father and that he was running in the said premises a cloth shop in the name and style as "Santosh Cloth Stores". Later in 1985, the petitioner's father and respondent No. 7 entered into a partnership deed and it was agreed between them to run the said cloth shop in the name and style as "M/s. Gurukripa Cloth Centre". In 1986, death occurred to the petitioner's father and thereafter on 29-8-1986, there was an agreement of partnership between the petitioner, respondent No. 7 Shakuntalabai and her son Atul respondent No. 8 to run the said cloth shop in the same premises. It was further agreed amongst them that each of the plaintiffs and respondent No. 8 will have a share of 25% while respondent No. 7 will have a share of 50% in the profits and losses of the firm. The shop premises belong to Shankarlal Munnalal Darak who died in March 1998. The respondent No. 6 is the son of deceased Shankarlal.

3. Admittedly, there is a dispute pending between the tenants on one hand and the landlord on the other hand. Both have filed civil suits against each other and the same are pending in the Civil Court. The landlord has filed Rent Case No. 69 of 1997 against the petitioner for getting possession of the shop premises. He has also filed Regular Civil Suit No. 631 of 1997 against respondent No. 7 for perpetual injunction restraining her from subletting the suit premises. The petitioner himself has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 134 of 1998 against the landlord for perpetual injunction restraining him from obstructing in his possession. It appears that one Balkisan has filed Special Civil Suit No. 302 of 1993 against Shankarlal and others for partition of the joint family properties including the shop premises in question.

4. It appears that some time in January 1998, there was a quarrel between the landlord and the tenants. The police apprehended breach of peace and, therefore, filed two chapter cases under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Chapter Case No. 35 of 1998 was filed against the present respondent No. 6 while Chapter Case No. 36 of 1998 was filed against the petitioner his son Yogesh and one Subhash Balchand Mugdia. The quarrel was in connection with possession of the shop premises. The police put lock on the said shop and retained the key thereof with them. According to the petitioner, this act on the part of the police was illegal and not justified. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 9 of 1998 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad and prayed for a direction to the Police Inspector of Cantonment Police Station to hand over the key of the shop premises to him. In reply to the said application, the police filed their say stating the circumstances under which they were constrained to put a lock on the shop premises. It was stated in the say that they had no objection if, the key of the shop premises was returned to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, however, found that the application was not maintainable under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He, therefore, rejected the application on 28-1-1999. Consequently, the key of the shop remained with the police. On 18-2-1999, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking the above mentioned reliefs.

5. So far as the relief regarding restoration of the petitioner's right to carry on his business in the shop premises in question

Click Here to Read the rest of this document