Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Panskura Cold Storage (P) Ltd vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 July, 2017
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1
669. 05.07.2017 W.P. 17053 (W) of 2017
Aloke
Ct. no. 28
M/s. Panskura Cold Storage (P) Ltd.
versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. S. Basu
Mr. H. Bhattacharya
Mr. R.I. Sardar
... for the petitioner
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Goutam Dey
Mr. Anupam Das
Ms. Rituparna Sengupta
... for the respondent nos. 4 to 10
Mr. Sakya Sen Mr. Amrita Lal Chatterjee ... for the State Petitioner company has approached this Court seeking direction upon the police authorities to provide police help in order to ensure enforcement its rights flowing from a decree passed by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and/or for protecting its right to carry on business in the cold storage.
Mr. Basu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cold-storage is owned by the petitioner-company and the private respondents are strangers to the management of the said company. 2 It is further submitted that the private respondents have been permanently restrained from creating any sort of disturbance to the smooth and peaceful running of the business of the petitioner company in the property. However, they have the liberty to claim the share of late Madan Mohan Pattanayak of the dissolved partnership firm as per the provisions of law.
On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents denies and disputes that his clients have violated any prohibitory order and claims that the issue as to any violation thereof can only be decided by the concerned executing court.
Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the State submits report wherefrom it appears that the dispute is civil in nature and that on the complaint of the petitioner proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Panskura P.S. NCR case no. 694 dated 01.04.2017 has been instituted. Copy of the report be handed over to the learned counsel for the respective parties.
In reply, reliance has been placed on (2006) 4 SCC 501 (P.R. Murlidharan & Ors. vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar & Ors.) in support of the contention that 3 police protection may be given where civil rights of the parties are not in dispute but have crystallized by away of a decree of a competent civil court.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties in the light of the materials on record. No doubt a decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner restraining the private respondents from interfering with the running of the cold-storage in question. However, whether the alleged activities of the private respondents are constituting a breach of the terms of the decree or not is a question of fact which requires to be looked into by the executing court. The powers of the executing court are wide enough to take care of instances of continuous breach of an order of injunction by passing appropriate directions to prevent such breaches including police picket/help, if necessary. I am of the opinion that the ratio in P.R. Murlidharan (supra) is clearly distinguishable as to the issue of execution of a decree of permanent injunction passed in a suit between private parties did not fall for consideration before the Apex Court in the said decision. Moreover, complaints of the petitioner with regard to the alleged wrongful activities of the private respondents had been acted upon by 4 instituting proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C.
Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that it shall be open to the petitioners to approach the civil court for execution of the decree passed in their favour and seek necessary orders including police help, if necessary, to ensure that there is no breach of the said decree, as alleged.
Proceeding instituted under Section 107 Cr.P.C. at the behest of the petitioner shall be continued with utmost expedition and be concluded at an early date.
However, if the action of the private respondents constitute penal offences or cause an apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquility in future, it shall also be open to the petitioner to initiate appropriate criminal proceeding against them in accordance with law.
Needless to mention lawful orders passed by the said judicial authorities shall be promptly enforced by the police authorities so as to ensure that there is no breach of public peace and tranquility in the matter of running of the said cold-storage.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
Since no affidavits have been called for, none of the 5 allegations shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)