Harisons Continental Private Limited, A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having vs. The State Of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Home, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

Facts

The petitioners, Harisons Continental Private Limited and Pratibha Advertising Private Ltd., were in possession of leased premises for running a hotel business. They allege that respondent no. 7, Kraft Outdoor Media Pvt. Ltd., in collusion with the local police, forcibly dispossessed them from the premises on the intervening night of February 24th/25th, 2022. This occurred during the pendency of an eviction suit filed by respondent no. 7 against the petitioners and a title suit filed by the petitioners seeking specific performance of a sale agreement. The petitioners claim they were not unauthorized occupants and that the lease was granted during ongoing company liquidation proceedings. They contend the police failed to protect their lawful possession and actively assisted respondent no. 7 in the unlawful dispossession.

Held

The Court held that respondent no. 7, through its directors, acted unlawfully by taking the law into its own hands during the pendency of the eviction suit. The Court found that the local police administration not only remained a mute spectator but actively assisted respondent no. 7 by handing over the keys to the premises. The Court noted the Dy.S.P.'s report indicating the police's involvement in handing over the key and the lack of response to emails sent to the Superintendent of Police, which strengthened the petitioners' claim of collusion. The Court found the statement of respondent no. 7's director regarding locking the gate due to abandoned condition to be without credence. The Court concluded that accepting such high-handed action would disrespect the rule of law. Therefore, the Court exercised its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to grant relief. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Patna, and the Officer-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station, Patna, to take back possession of the keys from respondent no. 7, remove any lock put on the gate, and hand over possession to the petitioners. If respondent no. 7 did not cooperate, the police were directed to break open the unauthorized lock. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the unlawful dispossession and did not deal with the issues pending adjudication in the civil suits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dispossession of the petitioners from the leased premises by respondent no. 7, allegedly with the collusion of the local police, during the pendency of civil suits, constitutes unlawful conduct warranting intervention by this Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of law regarding unlawful dispossession and abuse of process). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that respondent no. 7 acted unlawfully by taking the law into its own hands, circumventing the legal process by forcibly dispossessing them while eviction and title suits were pending. They contended that the local police administration failed in its duty to protect their lawful possession and instead colluded with respondent no. 7, facilitating the illegal dispossession. They relied on the principle that such high-handed actions undermine the rule of law and that relegating them to a civil suit would encourage further lawlessness. They cited the Supreme Court case of Samir Soban Sanyal. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the State respondents regarding the alleged collusion or the legality of the dispossession. The police report, however, is discussed in relation to the handing over of keys.