Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yuvraj Singh vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Ors on 10 October, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.10134 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.10.2014
Yuvraj Singh son of Sampuran Singh, resident of House No.200,
AKS Colony, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
... Petitioner
versus
State of U.T., through its Home Secretary, U.T., Secretariat, Sector
9, Chandigarh, and others.
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Kanwalvir Singh Kang, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor, UT,
Chandigarh, for respondents 1 and 2..
Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
Mr. Kanwalit Singh, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate,
for respondents 5 and 6.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes.
----
K.Kannan, J.(Oral)
1. The petitioner, who claims that he is doing a work of "fabrication and die machine tools (sic)" under the name and style of M/s Varne Machine Tools in Plot No.8, Industrial Area, Phase-II, SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.10.17 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.10134 of 2013 (O&M) -2- Chandigarh, has a grievance that the 3rd respondent, who is Station House Officer, Industrial Area, Phase-II, actively engaged himself as an aggressor along with respondents 5 and 6 and dispossessed him from the premises and locked him out on 02.07.2011. On a complaint by him to the Police Complaints Authority constituted in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parkash Singh and others Versus Union of India and others-2006(8) SCC 1 against the act of the 3rd respondent in carrying out an unlawful ejectment from the premises, the authority had examined him and passed an order on 14.10.2011 after collecting evidence of the petitioner's possession that there was prima facie proof that the 3rd respondent Jaspal Singh had acted with bias and prompted by malafides by allowing and assisting the landowner of the building, namely, the 6th respondent to prevent the petitioner from entering upon the property where he had been carrying on his business. The authority observed that the 3rd respondent was guilty of gross abuse of power and misconduct. He was ordered to be placed under suspension forthwith to face departmental action. The SSP, UT, Chandigarh, was requested to order a fair and impartial investigation into the case and order restoration of possession. The petitioner would contend that this direction came to no help to him and he had filed a suit before the civil court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to be restored in his possession and he has approached this court in a SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.10.17 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.10134 of 2013 (O&M) -3- situation where the UT, Administration assists the other private respondents to keep him at bay. The prayer in the writ petition, therefore, is to bring the respondents 1 and 2, who represent the UT, Administration to take appropriate action against respondents 5 and 6 and the erring official 3rd respondent.
2. The petitioner points out to me the directions of the Supreme Court in Parkash Singh's case (supra) that provided that the recommendations of the Police Complaints Authority both at the district and the State level for any action against the delinquent officer shall be binding on the State. The counsel would also refer me to the directions of the Supreme Court where the imperative of such a constitution of authority became relevant in the context of misconduct of police personnel in incidents like death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody or allegation of extortion, land/house grabbing or any incident involving serious abuse of authority. It appears that the UT, Administration that notified the authority had reserved to itself a right either to take action or no action which itself was brought to the attention of court through a writ petition by a human right activist Arvind Thakur in CWP No.11795 of 2012. The Division Bench of this court found that the notification of the UT, Administration was not in conformity with the direction of the Supreme Court in Parkash Singh's case (supra) and directed the UT, Administration to amend para 3 (b)(iv) of the notification to SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.10.17 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.10134 of 2013 (O&M) -4- bring it in tune of the direction of the Supreme Court. An issue which must have ended there did not so end and the UT tested the order of Division Bench before the Supreme Court in SLP No.3954 of 2014 titled Union Territory, Chandigarh versus Arvind Thakur. The Supreme Court found on a plain reading of Section 54 of the Punjab Police Act that it did not make any provision such as one which the High Court found objection and if the Section itself was silent on the point, the notification should not have empowered the administration to disagree with the finding of the Police Complaint Authority.
3. The counsel for the UT has an objection to the maintainability of the petition and states that the directions of the authority could be only to the State and could not have been against a private individual to justify a public law remedy through writ. The counsel would read to me a judgment of a coordinate Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.20158 of 2014 that the Police Complaint Authority could go into the allegations against the police personnel and a person complaining of harassment in that case in respect of matrimonial matter could have an alternative remedy and cannot approach the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This, according to him, would answer his objection regarding the untenability of the writ petition.
SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.10.17 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.10134 of 2013 (O&M) -5-
4. The counsel for the 3rd respondent-Police Officer states no more than the fact that he is facing investigation pursuant to the recommendations of the Police Complaint Authority and he would himself not join issues on other points raised. The Electricity Board, the 4th respondent admits to the fact that the petitioner's assertion that there had been a disconnection of electricity and would have no objection to the restoration of electricity if the court ordered the same.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 has very serious objection about the directions contained in the Police Complaint Authority for restoration of possession, for, according to him, the petitioner was never in possession. The authority did not examine either of the respondents and the order had been passed behind their back. They had approached the authority with their objections but the authority did not take their objections on board. There is no proof at all that there had been any form of tenancy of the 6th respondent in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was only his brother's son and since he was unemployed, he got training from the respondent in the trade and the property was never handed over to him. The learned senior counsel would also contend that the petitioner has himself resorted to a civil action for restoration of the possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act even on 02.01.2012 and the suit was getting SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.10.17 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.10134 of 2013 (O&M) -6- adjourned at the request of the petitioner himself and he having elected to file a suit for recovery of possession cannot come by means of a writ petition to secure a public law remedy against him. The learned senior counsel would also point out me that the respondents 5 and 6 had lodged an earlier complaint immediately on 02.07.2011 itself and defied the petitioner to establish anywhere that he was a tenant or that he was in possession of the property.
6. In a normal situation where a person had resorted to a civil court remedy for recovery of possession on a claim by him that he was in possession and that he was dispossessed otherwise than in accordance with law, I would not have allowed for the same relief of restoration of possession through a writ petition but the relief in the petition is not a mere duplication of what is already contained in the civil suit. On the other hand, it attempts to depict an active State machinery to support respondents 5 and 6 to do an act which is patently unlawful. The action of State machinery is bound to conform to the rule of law and shall be guardians of law. It is the proverbial fence eating the plants which it ought to protect. Here is a brazen attempt on the part of the administration to support what is so seemingly an unlawful act of respondents 5 and 6. There is a direction by the police authority to take action against the 3rd respondent and in the same order, there is also a direction that the petitioner shall be put in possession. The counsel for the UT would SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.10.17 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.10134 of 2013 (O&M) -7- argue that the action of the recommendation of the Police Complaint Authority can be only against a police officer and there can be no direction against the private individual. This again ought to seen in a context of how the facts unfolded themselves. The directions of the Supreme Court in Parkash Singh's case (supra) was in a situation where the police exceeded the authority and abjured its duty that was bound to be performed. It contemplates two different situations viz., of how a violence that gives rise to death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody. This could be an attribution of a criminal act by a police against a person or persons who could be victims with no other intervention. The other type of activity which the directions of the Supreme Court seek to protect is an allegation of extortion, land or house grabbing or any incident involving serious abuse of authority. A land grabbing need not be by the police itself nor need the extortion by a police to secure a personal aggrandizement. It could be an act that abuses authority and allows for that authority to be used in favour of some private person unjustifiably and secure to itself also a share in the booty, as it were. If, therefore, there is an act of a police in causing a person to be locked out of the premises and that activity supports the owner, then it is an act which abuses of authority and that would require to be quelled by any machinery that protects law. Indeed that ought to be the first duty of the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.10.17 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.10134 of 2013 (O&M) -8- of the Constitution. Here in an eloquent case where personal liberties of a person are thrown to winds by private individuals who are able to empower themselves by a mighty hand of police to beat up yet another citizen. The police complaint which the 6th respondent had given is itself a testimony to what is true, namely, of the petitioner's possession. The police complaint which is alleged on the same day on 02.07.2011, the exact date when the petitioner claimed that he had been locked out of the premises makes a reference about the fact that there had been a tussle at the property at 5:30 PM. His statement as recorded contains, inter alia, the following:-
"........Five years ago from today Yuvraj Singh son of Sampuran Singh had taken Rs. Five Lacs from us and Rs.75000/- incur interest. Now neither they are returning the money nor vacating the possession of the plot. He is threatening the police force to us and stated that I will also bring my family here and plot will be get resumed. Kindly help us or our plot be got vacated from them."
7. There are two important admissions in this complaint: (i) the person such as the petitioner who has received `5 lakhs was neither returning the money nor vacating the possession of the lands;
(ii) it pleads for the police intervention to deliver possession of the property to him in his expression to help the plot to get vacated SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.10.17 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.10134 of 2013 (O&M) -9- from them. When his own complaint is so explicit in admission of the petitioner's possession, it is pointless to contend that the petitioner is not in possession of the property. There was no need for the respondent to make a statement on the very same day when the petitioner was complaining that he was locked out and that the police must help him to secure possession. It cannot be that he came into possession of the property on that day and the same is referred as possession of the petitioner, the way the learned senior counsel wants me to read. On the other hand, there is a reference to the fact that he had received money nearly 5 years back and it is in that context that the non-return of money and the continuation of possession is referred to.
8. I am convinced that the petitioner would require the protection of the court to be forthwith restored to possession. The police and the administration which has supported the respondents 6 and 7 all along must now stand by the court's order on the pain of being inflicted with punishment for contempt if the lock is not removed from the premises and the petitioner allowed to be restored to possession. In so doing, I am not entering on adjudication whether the petitioner is a tenant or not. I merely find that the petitioner was locked out unlawfully when he was already in possession with the help of police and he shall gain re-entry. The institution of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.10.17 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.10134 of 2013 (O&M) - 10 -
surely the most appropriate remedy in a normal situation but if the petitioner is up against the State administration which supports the respondents 5 and 6 not merely outside the court but inside the court as well by a conduct which is not appropriate, it requires that a court extends its arm of protection to the petitioner. I direct the administration to remove the lock within 24 hours from the date of receipt of copy of this order and restore the property to the petitioner and file a compliance report in 48 hours to the Registry. The writ petition is allowed with costs against the Administration and the respondents 5 and 6 assessed at `10,000/- in two sets payable to the petitioner. The respondents 5 and 6 are forewarned against any action for ejectment of the petitioner otherwise than by due process of law.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.10.2014 sanjeev SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.10.17 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document