Direction given by writ court for removal of seal and handover possession to the petitioner association.

K.A. Swami, C.J.

When the writ appeal came up for admission, we considered it necessary to hear the writ petition itself, as the writ appeal arises out of an interim order passed in the writ petition. Hence, the Writ Petition No. 10883 of 1995 is also posted along with the writ appeal.

2. The writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 31st January, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in W.M.P.No. 900 of 1996. That was a petition filed to set aside the order dated 112. 1995 passed in W.M.P. No. 17291 of 1995 filed in W.P.No. 10883 of 1995. Under that order, the learned single Judge directed respondents 1 and 2 therein viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar to remove the seal affixed to the building in question and hand over the same to the petitioner association. It is this order, the learned single Judge has refused to set aside on the ground that the order has been executed and the possession has been handed over to the petitioner-association. One of the reasons given in the order dated 12th December, 1995 passed in W.M.P. No.17291 of 1995 is that respondents 1 and 2, therein viz,, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar respectively, exceeded their authority jurisdiction in sealing and attaching the premises and taking possession of the premises without there being no order passed under Sec.445(1) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. In the writ petition, the petitioner- association has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment by the petitioner- association of the building at Meenvadi Street, Idinthakarai, Tirunelveli district for the purpose of carrying out activities in connection with the objectives of the Association viz., storage and ice processing of the fish, marine catches by the petitioner-association members and to pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

4. It may be pointed out here that the writ petition came to be filed after premises in question was sealed and taken possession of by the Tahsildar under the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent herein Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, it is stated that there was a serious law and order problem created as a result of clash between the two warring groups, one group representing the petitioner association and another group representing the sixth respondent by name Mr. Stalin, that a peace committee meeting was held on 17. 1995 in which a decision was taken to seal and take possession of the premises in question by the Tahsildar, Radhapuram in order to keep peace and order and the said decision was accepted by both the parties who attended the peace meeting. It was also agreed that the possession of the premises to remain with the Tahsildar till the court or the Government passed suitable orders. It may be pointed out here that the object of the action taken by the respondents 2 and 3 was to prevent the law and order situation going out of control. Such an object may be appreciated. But it is not possible to appreciate the sealing of the premises and taking possession of the premises by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar at the instance of the Revenue Divisional Officer 2nd respondent without initiating and passing a preliminary order under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thereafter under Sec.146 of the Crl.P.C. if the Executive Magistrate considered the case to be one of emergency could have taken possession and attached the premises in question, which is the subject of dispute until a competent court determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. Even in such an event, it would be open to the Magistrate to withdraw the attachment at any time if he was satisfied that there was no longer any likelihood of breach of the peac