Rajan Kumar And Others vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioners, Rajan Kumar and others, sought protection from private respondents (respondents no. 4 to 7) who were allegedly demanding exorbitant rent and threatening eviction. The petitioners referred to a previous order dated 04.08.2021 in a similar petition (CRM-M-24656-2021) filed by similarly situated individuals. In that prior case, the Court had directed that the petitioners would not be evicted except by due process of law, and the Commissioner of Police and SHO were to ensure compliance. The petitioners in the present case alleged they were being forcibly evicted, and the police were not intervening, citing that the previous order did not pertain to them. The private respondents, through their counsel, agreed to dispose of the petition based on an undertaking similar to the one given in the earlier petition. The earlier petition involved notices for arrears of rehri license fee, sanitation charges, and GST for parking, with threats of legal action and removal of rehris.

Held

The Court disposed of the present petition in terms of the undertaking given by the private respondents (no. 4 to 6) and the order passed in CRM-M-24656-2021. The Court directed that the petitioners would not be evicted except by due process of law. The Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, and the SHO, Police Station Jalandhar Cantt., were directed to ensure that the petitioners are not evicted without due orders passed by a competent authority through due process of law. The private respondents were required to produce such orders before the Commissioner of Police prior to any eviction. The Court noted that the dispute was essentially civil in nature regarding license fee payments, but the allegations of forceful eviction were addressed. The issue of GST arrears was mentioned in the context of the prior petition's annexures, but the Court's operative directions focused on the eviction process and due process of law, not specifically on the GST dispute itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection from eviction except by due process of law, similar to the relief granted in CRM-M-24656-2021, given the alleged coercive actions by private respondents and the police's inaction. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they are similarly situated to the individuals in CRM-M-24656-2021 and are facing similar threats of forceful eviction. They asserted that the police were not protecting them, citing the previous order as a precedent for their protection. They relied on the principles of due process of law. Revenue/State's contention: The State (respondents no. 1 to 3) accepted notice. The private respondents (respondents no. 4 to 6) agreed to dispose of the petition based on an undertaking previously given in a similar case, which involved ensuring eviction only through due process of law. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the State counsel regarding the GST aspect.