Back
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, C.J. AND INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
Divine Grace Apartments Owners' Welfare Association and Anr.
versus
Mussammat Anis Fatma Begum and Ors.
G.A. No. 1082 of 2006
Decided on - 29 -4 -2008.
CIVIL DISPUTE - POLICE INTERVENTION - JURISDICTION OF WRIT COURT - SCOPE OF POWERS AND DUTIES OF POLICE AUTHORITIES - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: The Writ Court erred in adjudicating a civil dispute of whether the respondent was entitled to use the Eastern Gate at the premises in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without considering the scope of the powers and duties of the police authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an association of flat-owners, and the respondent, the owner of two flats in a residential block, were involved in disputes over the use of the flats for commercial purposes and access to the residential block through different entrances. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking police assistance to unlock the eastern gate of the premises, alleging obstruction of ingress and egress to her flats.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Writ Court erred in adjudicating the civil dispute of whether the respondent was entitled to use the Eastern Gate at the premises in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without considering the scope of the powers and duties of the police authorities. The Court further held that the respondent did not make out a case of any threat to life, liberty, personal safety, or safety of property, or any apprehension of breach of peace or law and order problem, to warrant police intervention.
Issues: 1. Whether the Writ Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a civil dispute in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the police authorities have a duty to intervene in civil disputes and unlock gates at their whims? 3. Whether the respondent made out a case for police intervention to unlock the eastern gate of the premises?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ may lie for enforcement of a constitutional, statutory, legal, or equitable right, but the respondent did not have a right to seek police intervention to unlock a gate when there was access to and from the flats in question through another gate. 2. The police authorities have a duty to maintain law and order and prevent crime, but there was no case made out in the writ petition of contravention by the police authorities of their duties and obligations. 3. The respondent did not make out a case of any threat to life, liberty, personal safety, or safety of property, or any apprehension of breach of peace or law and order problem, to warrant police intervention.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order directing the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station to unlock the padlock at the eastern gate of the premises was set aside.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J. :- This appeal is against an order dated 13th February, 2006 of the learned single Judge, disposing of the writ application being W.P. No. 133 of 2006 filed by the respondent No. 1, inter alia, by directing the respondent No. 4, being the Officer-in-Charge of Shakespeare Sarani Police Station, to open the padlock on the eastern gate of Premises No. 33, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkatta-700 017, hereinafter referred to as the said premises.
2. Pursuant to a development agreement executed by and between the respondent No. 1 and M/s. Swastik Private Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Developer, the Developer constructed a residential building and/or block, a commercial building and/or block and a small two-storied house at the said premises.
3. The respondent No. 1 has been allotted 4 flats in the residential block, two covering the entire first-floor, one on the second-floor and one on the third-floor. The respondent No. 1 has been residing at the two-storied house, behind the commercial block.
4. The appellant is an association of flat-owners, who own flats at the residential block at the said premises. Disputes appear to have arisen between the appellant and the respondent No. 1, over the action of the respondent No. 1 in letting out two first-floor flats allotted to the respondent No. 1 in the residential block, to the respondent No. 13, for commercial use.
5. The appellant along with others have filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 1650 of 2005, in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, which is still pending. Apart from the aforesaid suit, there are various other litigations between the respondent No. 1 and the appellant including a writ petition for an order, restraining CESC Ltd. from installing a commercial meter at the said first-floor flats allocated to the respondent No. 1.
6. The respondent No. 1 claims that on or about 11th August, 2005, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation had granted permission to the respondent No. 1 for change of user of the said two first-floor flats.
7. It is not in dispute that there are three entrances to the residential block, two on the west and one on the east. The decision of the appellant to keep the third entrance being the entrance on the eastern side, locked, appears to have given rise to further disputes between the respondent No. 1 and the appellant.
8. On 29th January, 2006 the respondent No. 1 wrote a letter requesting the respondent No. 4 to provide necessary assistance to the respondent No. 1, so that the respondent No. 1, her men, agents and servants could use the eastern entrance in addition to the other entrances on the west. The contents of the said letter are extracted hereinbelow for convenience :
"This is to draw your kind attention that in spite of the trial Courts order and subsequently Hon'ble High Court order the above mentioned persons and their agents are causing forceful obstruction and illegal acts by obstructing my men and my tenants M/s. VLCC Health Care Ltd., in free ingress and egress to the portions of the building belonging exclusive to me. Today in the morning at about 9 a.m. the said Mr. Vikash Agarwal along with his men came down from the 5th Floor Flat-cum-Office and daringly put his padlocks in the two entrance gates leading to the common area of the building. On demanding explanation they behaved very arrogantly and roughly threatening not to allow anyone to enter the building premises without their permission. I request you to take necessary steps against their high-handedness in causing concern and difficulty to all the occupants of the building."
9. The letter of 29th January, 2006 was followed by another hand-written letter dated 30th January, 2006, the contents whereof are extracted hereinbelow :
"This is to state that the premises No. 33, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700017 consists of three buildings (Commercial and Residential).
I am the sole Mutawalli (Trustee) of the said wakf property residing at one of the said three buildings.
I hav
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
