RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–This case is a classic illustration of failure of the police administration in protecting the lawful possession of the petitioner over the premises in question. The petitioner has been dispossessed from the property by act of lawlessness, as alleged, by respondent no.7 in collusion with the local police. It is said to be in complete disregard and disobedience to the spirit of the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Company Judge in Company Petition No.10 of 1996 wherein while disposing of the company petition the Hon’ble Court categorically held that “… the Ex-management will have a right to evict any unauthorized encroachers/tenant/licensee in accordance with law, no one can take away the right of any person to claim his protection in capacity of being a tenant or licensee which again can be adjudicated before the appropriate forum/court strictly in accordance with law....” The petitioners were not put in the category of unauthorized occupants.

Case of the petitioners

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the property in question belongs to one Jai Mangal Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’), a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The said company had obtained lease of the land appertaining to Municipal Survey No.119, Holding No.251, 247, 231, 212 and 212A, Circle No.6, Ward No.2, situated at Frazer Road, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Patna. The land was originally owned and possessed by one Jagdish Prasad who was Managing Director of the Company.

3. The Company faced a liquidation process in Company Case No.10 of 1996 but during the on-going liquidation proceeding the Managing Director of the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 08.11.2006 with one Rupam Prakash (Director of the petitioner no.2) and arranged funds to pay all dues to the creditors of the company. By the end of December, 2009 the petitioner no.2 had paid a total consideration amount of Rs.1,41,49,000/-.

4. An agreement for sale was entered into between the Managing Director Jagdish Prasad and the petitioner no.2 on 17.03.2010 (Annexure-2). The sale agreement confirms the consideration amount at Rs.2.53 crores and acknowledges the receipt of Rs.1,41,49,000/-. It was agreed that the sale deed shall be executed within a period of four months from the date on which the liability on the property is discharged.

5. It is stated that because disposal of winding up matter was getting delayed, therefore, in order to enable the petitioner no.2 to start its business the Managing Director of the Company executed a registered lease deed in favour of petitioner no.2 on 06.08.2011 (Annexure-3). Later on the petitioner no.2 executed a sub-lease dated 15.03.2012 in favour of petitioner no.1 for doing the business of a hotel in the name and style of Harisons Continental (Annexure-4 to the writ application).

6. It is stated that winding up proceeding was closed vide order dated 18.12.2014. By this time the petitioner no.2 had paid altogether a sum of Rs.2,24,45,035/- to the Company. The petitioner no.2 repeatedly tried to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement for sale by paying rest of Rs.28,54,965/- but the Managing Director of the Company namely Jagdish Prasad evaded the same on one ground or the other. The petitioner no.2 could sense that Jagdish Prasad was trying to sell the property in question to a third person, therefore, the petitioner no.2 got published a notice in the Hindi local Newspaper ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ on 06.05.2017 informing the public at large regarding its agreement for sale and the fact that Jagdish Prasad had already obtained the consideration amount from the petitioner no.2 and sold the property. A copy of the public notice dated 06.05.2017 is Annexure-5 to the writ application.

7. The petitioner no.2 had lodged an FIR against Jagdish Prasad being Kotwali P.S. Case No.320/2017 dated 01.07.2017 for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 419,