Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Altamas Kabir, Asit Kumar Bisi
MARCANDY PRASAD RADHA KRISHNA PRASAD PRIVATE LTD - Appellant
Versus
RANI SATI METAL INDUSTRIES - Respondent
A. P. O. T. 330 Of 2004
Decided On : 09/13/2004
INTERIM ORDER - JURISDICTION - POLICE PICKET - SECTION 13 OF THE INDIAN POLICE ACT, 1861 - WRIT PETITION - RULE 26 OF THE WRIT RULES - LEAVE TO MOVE WRIT PETITION - REASONS FOR GRANTING LEAVE - ORDER 39 RULES 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - APPLICABILITY TO WRIT PROCEEDINGS - AD INTERIM ORDER AFFECTING RIGHTS OF PARTIES NOT SERVED WITH WRIT PETITION AND NOTICE - VALIDITY - COURT'S POWER TO PASS FRESH ORDER - MALA FIDE INTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS - LEASE AGREEMENT - TERMS AND CONDITIONS - RESTORATION OF SUPPLY - INSTALLATION OF SEPARATE SUPPLY - JURISDICTION OF SINGLE JUDGE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant company leased out its factory premises to the writ petitioners for a period of ten years with a provision for renewal for a further period of ten years. The lease deed required the lessee to pay C. E. S. C. Limited, as and when required, a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of the past electricity dues of the demised premises and for obtaining re-connection of the existing power line in the demised premises. It was also stipulated that the lessee would pay the electricity charges on the basis of units as consumed from the relevant meter lying in the demised premises within the stipulated period contained in the electricity bills to be received from C. E. S. C. Limited, without any deduction or abatement whatsoever.
Finding of the Court:
1. The learned Single Judge had jurisdiction to issue an interim order in terms of prayers g (i) and (ii) of the writ petition by his order dated 21st June, 2004, in the writ application filed by the respondent No. 1 herein. 2. The directions given by the learned Single Judge were merely to prevent a breach of the peace and to ensure that the writ petitioners/respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein could continue to operate their business without obstruction on the basis of the lease executed in their favour.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned Single Judge had jurisdiction to issue an interim order in terms of prayers g (i) and (ii) of the writ petition by his order dated 21st June, 2004? 2. Whether the provisions of Rule 26 of the Writ Rules were applicable to the facts of the instant case? 3. Whether the learned Single Judge could have passed the interim order on 21st June, 2004, without first complying with the provisions of Rule 26 of the Writ Rules? 4. Whether the intentions of the appellants were mala fide and the interim order as passed in the writ petition was liable to be continued?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Rule 26 of the Writ Rules were not applicable to the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge had not passed any interim order against the appellants herein adversely affecting their interest. 2. The directions which had been given by the learned Single Judge were merely to prevent a breach of the peace and to ensure that the writ petitioners/respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein could continue to operate their business without obstruction on the basis of the lease executed in their favour.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE short point involved in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge had jurisdiction to issue an interim order in terms of prayers g (i) and (ii) of the writ petition by his order dated 21st June, 2004, in the writ application filed by the respondent No. 1 herein. In order to appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the appellants, prayers g (i) and (ii) are reproduced hereinbelow :-" (G) Appropriate direction be given directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and each of them: (i) to post a police picket comprising of at least 15 armed police personnel including two Armed Officers, at the entrance of the factory of your petitioners situated at No. 46, Dasarath Ghosh Lane, P. S. Bantra, Dist. Howrah in compliance with section 13 of the Indian Police Act, 1861 read with paragraph 25, Chapter VII of the Police Regulations, at the cost of the petitioners. (ii) to ensure free ingress and egress of the petitioners' officers, employees and callers to the said factory of the petitioners situated at No. 46, dasarath Ghosh Lane, P. S. Bantra, District-Howrah and free movement of truck, lorries and trailers carrying out its activities to the said factory without any interference, obstruction by any anti-social elements or outsiders, including the respondent No. 8, and also to ensure that no one moves around the entrance of the said factory or threat the workers with arms or weapons and that no unlawful assembling, unlawful intimidation or any breach of peace takes place in the locale, in and around the premises No. 46, Dasarath Ghosh Lane, P. S. Bantra, District Howrah. "
( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that by an agreement dated 27th June, 2001, the appellant herein leased out its factory situated at premises No. 46, dasarath Ghosh Lane, P. S. Bantra, Dist. Howrah, to the writ petitioners for a period often years with provision for renewal for a further period of ten years, at a monthly rental of Rs. 40,000/ -. One of the covenants contained in the Lease deed requires the lessee, namely, the writ petitioners to pay to C. E. S. C. Limited, as and when required, a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of the past electricity dues of the demised premises and for obtaining re-connection of the existing power line in the demised premises. It was also agreed that the lessor would refund the said sum of Rs. 5 lakhs at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the lessee and/or such amount would be adjusted against the monthly rent of rs. 40,000/ -. It was also stipulated that the lessee would pay the electricity charges on the basis of units as consumed from the relevant meter lying in the demised premises within the stipulated period contained in the electricity bills to be received from C. E. S. C. Limited, without any deduction or abatement whatsoever.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioners, on or about 5th June, 2004, the electric supply to the factory was disconnected by C. E. S. C. Ltd. without any notice of disconnection. Inasmuch as, attempts were allegedly made by the respondent no. 8 in the writ petition, who is the appellant No. 2 herein, to disrupt the running of the writ petitioners' business the writ petitioners first moved an application under section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive) Sadar, Howrah. By an order dated 7th June, 2004, on the said application, the learned Executive Magistrate directed the police authorities to maintain peace in the area of the said factory. Inasmuch as, in spite of such order the writ petitioners/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, continued to be threatened and there was every apprehension of a serious breach of peace, a writ petition under Tender No. 243 of 2004, was filed by the said respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 9th June, 2004, challenging such disconnection of electricity to the demised premises. During the hearing of the said writ petition, the C. E. S. C. Limited disclosed two letters dated 15th April, 2004 a
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
