Shiva Gupta And Ors vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioners, Shiva Gupta and others, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking protection from private respondents (respondents no. 4 to 7). The petitioners alleged that respondents no. 4 to 7 were forcefully demanding five times the rent and threatening to vacate their shops. The dispute primarily concerned license fee payments to the Cantonment Board. The petitioners also alleged that respondent no. 7 was threatening eviction for non-payment of license fee. The petitioners sought to place on record notices issued by the Cantonment Board demanding arrears of rehri license fee, sanitation charges, and GST for parking rehris, and warning of legal action and removal of rehris. Respondents no. 4 to 6 acknowledged issuing these notices.

Held

The High Court disposed of the petition by issuing a direction to respondents no. 4 to 6 that the petitioners would not be evicted except through due process of law. The Court further directed respondent no. 2 (Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar) and respondent no. 3 (SHO, Police Station Jalandhar Cannt.) to ensure that the petitioners are not forcibly evicted without due orders passed under the due process of law by a competent court or authority. Respondents no. 4 to 6 were required to produce such orders before the Commissioner of Police prior to any eviction. The Court noted that learned counsel for respondents no. 4 to 6 had already conceded that eviction would only be through due process of law if found necessary due to non-payment of license fee. The issue of GST payment itself was not directly decided, but the context of the dispute involved demands that included GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection from eviction except through due process of law, considering the allegations of forceful eviction and threats by private respondents (respondents no. 4 to 7)? This issue turns on the interpretation and application of principles of natural justice and the requirement of lawful eviction procedures. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that they are being subjected to forceful eviction and threats by private respondents, necessitating judicial intervention to ensure they are not evicted except through due process of law. They relied on the notices issued by the Cantonment Board demanding various charges, including GST, as evidence of the dispute. Revenue/State: Learned counsel for respondents no. 4 to 6 fairly stated that the petitioners would not be evicted except by following due process of law if such eviction is found necessary due to non-payment of license fee etc. The State counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3.