2007 Supreme(Cal) 21
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta
ANIL KUMAR MAITY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
WP 23191 (W) Of 2006
Decided On : 01/16/2007
K.L.BISWAS, MANOJ KUMAR RAY, P.K.Guha
Police costs for maintaining law and order during the execution of a decree are not leviable under Rule 208 (2) (b) of the Civil Rules and Orders of the High Court, Calcutta.
Headnote:
POLICE COSTS FOR EXECUTION OF DECREE - ASSESSMENT - POLICE COSTS FOR MAINTAINING LAW AND ORDER - NOT LEVIABLE - RULE 208 (2) (B) OF THE CIVIL RULES AND ORDERS OF THE HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, after a gruelling 11-year-long litigation, succeeded in evicting his tenant and recovering possession of the suit property. Despite the decree, the tenant's legal heirs resisted vacating the premises, leading to execution proceedings. The petitioner faced obstacles in obtaining police assistance due to the inaction of the Superintendent of Police (SP). The SP, upon the High Court's intervention, assessed the cost for deploying 36 police personnel at Rs. 11,882/-, including charges for maintaining law and order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assessment of costs for deploying 36 police personnel was excessive and contravened Rule 208 (2) (b) of the Civil Rules and Orders of the High Court, Calcutta. The rule exempts the levy of police aid costs in cases where police help is required due to general conditions, such as a disturbed locality or the likelihood of resistance from a class of people.
Issues: 1. Whether the assessment of costs for deploying 36 police personnel was justified. 2. Whether the petitioner was liable to bear the costs of maintaining law and order during the execution of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the assessment of costs for deploying 36 police personnel was illegal and arbitrary. It emphasized that the police are duty-bound to maintain law and order and that asking a citizen to pay for such costs is preposterous. The court relied on Rule 208 (2) (b) and the judgment in Probodh Chandra Dutt v. State of West Bengal, which condemned the imposition of exorbitant police costs for executing a decree.
Final Decision: The court quashed the assessment of costs for deploying 36 police personnel and directed the SP to fix a date for providing sufficient police force to maintain law and order and prevent any breach of peace during the execution of the decree. The court also awarded costs to the petitioner, considering his prolonged struggle and the need to activate the SP through legal proceedings.
( 2 ) CERTAIN basic facts are required to be noted for appreciating the plight of the petitioner.
( 3 ) AFTER being involved in a gruelling litigation for eleven long years, the petitioner succeeded in the suit instituted by him (T. S. No. 337 of 1987)before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court at Barasat, North 24-Parganas, in which he prayed for eviction of his tenant Bhola Nath mondal (the defendant) and recovery of possession of the suit property. During pendency of the suit, Bhola Nath died. His legal heirs were brought on record who contested the suit as defendants. The suit was decreed in part, on contest, on 4. 8. 98. The defendants were directed to vacate the suit premises in favour of the petitioner within three months from date failing which the petitioner was given liberty to execute the decree through court.
( 4 ) SINCE the defendants did not vacate the suit property, the decree was put into execution by the petitioner on 30. 6. 99 giving rise to T. Ex. Case No. 5 of 1999. Despite orders passe'd by the Executing Court, possession of the suit property could not be handed over to the petitioner owing to resistance put up by the judgment-debtors. On an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner praying for police help, Misc. Case No. 5 of 2004 was registered. The Executing Court by order dated 17. 7. 04 was pleased to allow the misc. Case ex parte and passed an order directing issuance of a letter to the Superintendent of Police, North 24-Parganas (hereafter the said S. P.) for assessment of cost for providing police help involving an Inspector, three constables and two lady constables and to report by 7. 9. 04. This order failed to activate the said S. P. and consequently the petitioner had to again approach the Executing Court with a petition on 7. 12. 05 for issuance of an order on the said S. P. as and by way of a reminder. By an order dated 7. 12. 05, the Executing Court directed issuance of reminder to the said S. P. and the case was adjourned till 19. 1. 06 awaiting a reply.
( 5 ) THE woes of the petitioner persisted since the said S. P. remained unmoved. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in its Civil revisional Jurisdiction by filing an application under Article 227 of the constitution of India. By an order dated 3. 8. 06, the said application was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court with the following order: -
"it is really unfortunate that execution of a decree of Civil court has been frustrated by the inaction and indifference on the part of the Superintendent of Police, 24-Parganas (North ). In disposing of the revisional application, direction is given to the Superintendent of Police, 24-Parganas (North) to submit the estimated cost of police help within seven days from the date of communication of the order, failing which appropriate action will have to be taken against Superintendent of Police, 24-Parganas (North ). It is made clear that once the estimated cost is given, the executing Court shall take all possible steps to have the decree executed without any further loss