Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manappuram Finance Limited & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 August, 2020
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
10.
18.8.2020
S.D.
W.P. 5538 (W) of 2020
With
CAN 3247 of 2020
Manappuram Finance Limited & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee
Ms. Soni Ojha
....for the Petitioners.
Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Sayan Sinha
..for the respondent nos. 2 and 4.
Md. T. M. Siddiqui ...for the State.
Ms. Mrinalini Majumdar
Mr. Vivekananda Bose
....for the respondents.
Petitioners seek a direction upon the authorities to take steps in accordance with a complaint dated June 2, 2020 made by the petitioners. The petitioners also assail a writing dated February 26, 2020 issued by the respondent no. 2.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are the tenants under the respondent no. 9. The 2 respondent no. 9 is creating hindrances in the peaceful enjoyment of the tenancy. The respondent no. 9 was the former Chairman of the municipality and is presently the Chairman of the Board of Administrators of the municipality. The respondent no. 9 was instrumental in getting the municipality to issue the impugned letter dated February 26, 2020. He submits that, the petitioners were without electricity and water supply at the time of filing of the writ petition. Today, the petitioners are receiving water supply, but are without electricity. He submits that, the respondent no. 9 is misutilizing his official position in trying to evict the petitioners from the tenancy premises. An earlier attempt was made when the petitioners filed another writ petition being W.P. 24039 (W) of 2019 in which an order dated January 7, 2020 was passed. He submits that appropriate measures be put in place so that the tenancy of the petitioners is protected and that the petitioners are in a position to enjoy continued supply of water and electricity. He seeks directions with regard to Certificate of Enlistment.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the municipality submits that, the writ petition is not maintainable. According to him, the disputes are private in nature and are between private parties. The Writ 3 Court need not enter into such arena in a writ petition. He submits that, he has instructed his client to withdraw the letter dated February 26, 2020. According to him, the municipality is not required to supply water or electricity to the petitioner. So far as the grant of certificate of enlistment is concerned, since the letter dated February 26, 2020 stands withdrawn by the municipality, the petitioners cannot have any further grievance. Moreover, he points out that the petitioners are yet to apply for issuance of a certificate of enlistment. He draws the attention of the Court to the prayers of the writ petition and submits that, the writ petition does not survive the withdrawal of the letter dated February 26, 2020.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 10 submits that, the petitioners are the tenants under his client. His client did not obstruct the water and the electricity supply to the petitioners. He adopts the contentions of the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the municipality so far as the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned. He points out that the petitioners are trespassers with the tenancy being terminated on the issuance of a notice of eviction.
The issue of maintainability of the writ petition as raised needs to be considered before any interim relief is considered. 4
The petitioners admittedly were tenants at the premises concerned. There is a notice of eviction. The petitioners are yet to suffer any decree of eviction passed by a competent court. The petitioners are therefore entitled to possess and enjoy the tenanted premises till they are evicted by a due process of law. The respondent no. 10 claims itself to be the landlord of such premises. The respondent no. 10 is the son of the respondent no. 9. The respondent no. 9 is the present Chairman of the Board of Administrators of the Municipality. He was the Chairman of the municipality concerned before the appointment of the Board of Administrators. There are disputes and differences between the petitioners and the respondent nos. 9 and 10 in their individual capacities. There is also a grievance of the petitioners against the municipality so far as the issuance of Certificate of Enlistment is concerned. In the earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 24039 (W) of 2019, it was contended by the petitioners that the tenancy premises was locked by the private respondents. In such writ petition, an order dated January 7, 2020 was passed recording the contentions of the private respondents that they did not lock the premises at all.
A tenant in a premise can be evicted by a process of law. As noted above, the petitioners are yet to suffer a decree of eviction passed by a 5 competent court. Apparently, the respondent nos. 9 and 10 are misutilizing the official position of the respondent no. 9 in relation to the municipality. There is letter dated February 26, 2020, which was issued by the municipality with regard to a certificate of enlistment. The letter is a refusal to issue a certificate of enlistment to the petitioners on the ground that the lease between the petitioners and the private respondent stands expired. The municipality is taking the side of the private respondents. The letter dated February 26, 2020 is evidence of this fact. The reason why the municipality is taking the side of the private respondents is not far to seek. The respondent nos. 9 and 10 are misutilizing the official position of the respondent No. 9 in relation to the municipality and are trying to pressurize the petitioners by having the letter dated February 26, 2020 issued by the municipality. They are also dealing with the petitioners on the strength of the official status of the respondent no. 9. The municipality is an instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. There are allegations against the municipality in the writ petition. Its conduct of issuance of the letter dated February 26, 2020 as well as the letter itself are under challenge. In fact, it is conceded on behalf of the municipality that the letter dated February 26, 2020 ought not to have been written. Therefore, the issue of 6 maintainability of the writ petition is answered by holding that the writ petition is maintainable.
Having found the writ petition maintainable, the other contentions of the parties require consideration. Petitioners seek interim protection. After having found the writ petition maintainable it would be inappropriate to require the petitioners to avail of their remedies from another forum so far as the other reliefs are concerned.
Water and electricity are essential for the petitioners to enjoy the tenancy. Measures should be in place to ensure uninterrupted supply of water and electricity to the petitioners.
So far as the interim reliefs sought by the petitioners are concerned, it would be appropriate to direct that the Officer‐in‐Charge of the local police station to ensure that the petitioners receive uninterrupted water and electricity supply at the tenancy premises concerned. The Officer‐in‐Charge of the local police station will act on any complaint being made by the petitioners received in his Whatsapp number. The Officer‐in‐Charge of the local police station will make over his Whatsapp number to the learned Advocate for the petitioners who is at liberty to make the complaints of non‐receipt of electricity or water supply. The Officer‐in‐Charge of the local police station will deploy 7 appropriate police personnel and will take appropriate measures to ensure that uninterrupted water and electricity supply are provided to the petitioners round the clock. He will make video photography of availability of water and electricity supply at the locale and will submit a report to such effect on the next date. He will identify the person or persons interrupting, if there be any, of the water and electricity supply and take appropriate and suitable measures with regard thereto.
The Officer‐in‐Charge of the appropriate police station will deploy appropriate police personnel immediately on receipt of the order and will take suitable measures to ensure that the petitioners are receive water and electricity supply.
The petitioners are at liberty to apply for issuance of a certificate of enlistment with the municipality. In the event the application for issuance of certificate of enlistment is not received by the municipality, the petitioners are at liberty to forward such application by electronic mail to the address of the learned Advocate on record for the municipality.
Learned Advocate on record for the municipality in turn is directed to forward the application for grant of certificate of enlistment made by the petitioners to the municipality. The municipality 8 immediately upon receiving the application for issuance of the certificate of enlistment will issue the certificate of enlistment to the petitioners within 48 hours thereof. The municipality will not take any coercive measure against the petitioners for non‐issuance of the certificate of enlistment. If it requires to take any coercive measure against the petitioners, it will obtain the leave of the Court prior thereto.
Let affidavit‐in‐opposition be filed within two weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.
List the writ petition three weeks hence.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)