MANAS NATH ROY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule with the corresponding interim order directing respondents Nos. 2 and 3 viz. , Superintendent of Police Alipore and Officer-in-Charge, Canning Police Station respectively, to protect the fishery viz. , Moukhali Fishery of Police Station Canning and for immediate posting of Police picket, was obtained on 13-10-1980.

( 2 ) THE present application for vacating the interim order, has been filed by respondents Nos. 4, 7, 12, 15 and 17 in the Rule.

( 3 ) THE fact, on which the Rule and an interim order as mentioned hereinbefore, was obtained, will have to be stated. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the sole proprietor of Moukhali Co-operative and has been conducting pisciculture at Village Moukhali, Police Station Canning. The petitioner has stated further that he instituted a Title Suit, being No. 25 of 1977, in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, Alipore, for interim order of injunction against respondents Nos. 5 to 21 and the learned Judge was pleased to grant such order of injunction and thereafter, on March 27, 1978, the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was heard and was rejected.

( 4 ) AGAINST such determination, an appeal was taken and in the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, was also pleased to refuse to grant interim order of injunction, as was asked for. Then, an appeal was taken to this Court, wherein Civil Rule No. 968 (M) of 1978, was granted and by the said Rule, the respondents Nos. 5 to 21 herein, were restrained by an interim order of injunc-tion from interfering with and or disturbing the possession or damage the fishery, till the disposal of the Rule or till the disposal of the application for interim order, as was pending before the learned Court below.

( 5 ) THE said Civil Rule was made absolute on 1-9-78. It should also be noted that subsequently, the learned Additional District Judge, 13th Court; Alipore, also allowed the pending appeal and restrained the respondents Nos. 5 to 21 herein, from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit property, till the disposal of the suit. These aspects or facts, are not in dispute.

( 6 ) THE petitioner has alleged that the respondents concerned or as mentioned hereinbefore, having failed in their attempts to interfere with his possession, took the help and assistance of strangers and anti-social elements, for the purpose of dispossessing him from the fishery and against such threat, a proceeding under Section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being M. P. Case 921 of 1980 (Brojendra Nath Biswas v. Saukat Pur-kait), was initiated, before the learned Executive Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas. In that proceedings, on October 6, 1980 the said learned Executive Magistrate, made an order directing the Canning Police Station, to enquire and report by 13-11-80 and also directed the authorities, that if necessary, the Officer-in-Charge concerned, should afford due protection to the petitioner, by posting police picket, at the cost of the petitioner. It is the further allegation of the petitioner that even in spite of such order, no help or assistance was given to him and as such, he approached the authorities concerned for police picket, but even then, nothing was done by such authorities. It has been categorically averred that even in spite of the order made in the Criminal Proceeding, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as mentioned above, have neither rendered any assistance to the petitioner nor have discharged their statutory obligations to protect the interest of the fishery, which according to the petitioner, would mean gross negligence on the part of those respondents. He has further stated that by such inaction or inability as mentioned above, those respondents have flagrantly violated the provisions of law and have absolutely failed to discharge their statutory obligations under the relevant rules and regulations. It is under those circ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document