Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and the State. 2. This case is another example of arbitrariness and highhandedness of the respondents authorities, who are the guardians of law and order in the district of Pakur, in dispossessing the petitioner from his possession without following the due process of law. 3. The short fact of the case was that the petitioner was running a grocery shop in a tenanted premises in the town of Pakur under the tenancy of respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 had filed a suit for eviction bearing Title Suit No. 11 of 1988. The said suit was dismissed on merit by the Subordinate Judge, Pakur, in terms of the judgment dated 16.7.1991 disbelieving the case of respondent No. 5, the land-lord, of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. A copy of the judgment is Annexure-11 to the writ application. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 preferred Title Appeal No. 21 of 1991 before the Additional District Judge, Pakur, which is admittedly pending. 4. The petitioners case was that, instead of pursing the remedy before the Additional District Judge, who was in seisin of the appeal, respondent No. 5 , in collusion with respondents 2 and 4, who are Deputy Commissioner, Sub-divisional Officer and Circle Officer, Pakur, respectively, got the notice issued from the office of respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed by respondent No. 2 to appear before him and file show cause as to why the complaint made by respondent No. 5 should not be accepted. The petitioner went to the residence of respondent No. 2 but he was kept waiting for about 12 hours in the said premises and at about 4.00 A.M. in the next morning he was called in the chambers of respondent No. 2 where respondent No. 3 was also present. Respondents 2 and 3 asked the petitioner for his papers and the petitioner showed them the judgment and decree dated 16.7.1991 passed in the Eviction Suit which had been decide in his favour and against respondent No. 5. Respondents 2 and 3 asked the petitioner for his papers and the petitioner showed them the judgment and decree dated 16.7.1991 passed in the Eviction Suit which had been decide in his favour and against respondent No. 5. It was alleged that the said officers asked him to come again at 2.00 P.M. The petitioner went to meet respondent No. 2 again at 2.00 P.M. and he was told by respondent No. 2 that he would be coming to his shop for inspection at 7.00 P.M. Respondent No. 2 came to the shop of the petitioner at 7.45 P.M. and asked him whether this was the shop in which he was running his grocery shop. The petitioner then told him that he was running the small grocery shop to sustain his family which consisted of his old father, wife and five minor children. Thereafter, it was alleged that the respondent No. 2 caught hold of the hairs of the petitioner and slapped him a number of times saying that he should immediately vacate the shop premises along with his family members who were present in the shop at that time. Respondent No. 2 further directed respondent No. 3 to see that the petitioner vacates the shop premises along with his family members and all the articles in his shop. The petitioner, thus, after being harassed and humiliated, sent his family to his residential house which is also a rented house and went to see his lawyer who got an application drafted on behalf of the petitioner requesting respondent No. 2 not to take any step in the matter till the appeal before the Civil Court was finally decided. This was sent by registered post, as advised by the lawyer, to the Deputy Commissioner with a copy of the same to the Divisional Commissioner at Dumka. Copies of that application and the receipt have been filed and marked as Annexure-3 series. The petitioner further alleged that thereafter the did not visit the shop because, while returning back, the respondents 2 and 3 had threatened him that if he tried to enter into the shop again, he would be dragged up to the Police Station and put behind the bar. 5. The petitioner further alleged that thereafter the did not visit the shop because, while returning back, the respondents 2 and 3 had threatened him that if he tried to enter into the shop again, he would be dragged up to the Police Station and put behind the bar. 5. The petitioner further alleged that he learnt that respondent No. 4 went to the shop premises of the petitioner on 26.8.1996 at 11.00 A.M. and directed respondent No. 5 to break open the lock of the shop and after which all the articles of the shop were handed over by the respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5, the landlord and since then neither possession of the shop nor the articles of his shop were handed over to the petitioner. This has resulted in filing of the writ application, wherein the petitioner, besides praying for him in possession, had claimed compensation. 6. The matter was taken up on 17.9.1996 and this Court took a serious view of the matter and directed the learned State Counsel to file counter-affidavit on behalf of the district administration. Pursuant to that, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 making baseless statements and showing unawareness of the pendency of the appeal in the Civil Court. this Court, not being satisfied from the said counter-affidavit, directed respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to appear in person on 30.9.1996. On 30.9.1996 the said respondents appeared in person in Court. Respondent No. 5 also entered appearance through Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. 7. Another counter-affidavit was filed by the Deputy Commissioner admitting that on 14.8.1996 one Md. Zamil, respondent No. 5, submitted an application to him in Janta Darbar and in the said, application there was nothing with regard to Court case pending before the Civil Court. It was further stated that the petitioners appeared before respondent No. 2 on 19.8.1996 and he took the plea that he was in search of a suitable accommodation for his shop. From perusal of the counter-affidavit so filed by respondent No. 2, this Court cannot believe that the petitioner will appear before respondent. No. 2 and will not disclose the fact that the aforesaid eviction suit filed by respondent No. 5 was dismissed and the matter is pending in appeal. 8. From perusal of the counter-affidavit so filed by respondent No. 2, this Court cannot believe that the petitioner will appear before respondent. No. 2 and will not disclose the fact that the aforesaid eviction suit filed by respondent No. 5 was dismissed and the matter is pending in appeal. 8. When this Court was not satisfied with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, learned Standing Counsel VIII, on instruction from the Deputy Commissioner, who was present in Court, submitted that the petitioner would be put in possession of the shop within 48 hours. On the submission made by the learned Counsel, the hearing of the case was adjourned for today. 9. Today, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner stating, inter alia, that the possession of the shop premises has been handed over to the petitioner and the latter after getting possession acknowledged the same by executing a receipt, a copy of which is Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. 10. In the instant case, there cannot be any doubt that respondents 2 to 4 were fully aware about the pendency of the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 and the petitioner was evicted from the shop premises in uttar disregard of the order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. 11. The only question that remains for consideration is as to whether the circumstances exist, in the instant case of exceptional nature, that the Court found itself compelled to exercise the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. I am of the view that, if the dignity and prestige of the Court by the majesty of rule of law is to be upheld, the Court must stretch its long arms to dead with any litigant or person who attempts to play with the procedure of the Court and shows disregard of rule of law. The Court under Article 226 cannot refuse to exercise its power in such a situation because nothing is more demoralising to a law abiding citizen than to be told by the Court that it is helpless in the matter of affording him any protection even when his adversary acted with impunity contrary to all known legal procedures and that too after submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court. 12. 12. In the case of Krishna Ram Mahale V/s. Shobha Venkat Rao -- , the Apex Court held that it is well settled law in this country that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be disposed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. 13. Recently, in the case of Samir Sobhan Sanyal V/s. Tracks Trade Private Ltd. and Ors. -- , the Apex Court observed as under:- It would thus be clear that without any decree or order or eviction of the appellant form the demised premises, he had been unlawfully dispossessed form the premises without any due process of law. The question, therefore is whether he should be allowed to remain in possession till his application under Order XXI, Rules 98 and 99 is adjudicated upon and an order made. Though the learned Counsel for the first respondent and also for the third respondent, who is one of the transferees from the sixth respondent, sought to contend that the appellant had no right to remain in possession after the lessee, M/s. India Foils Ltd. had admitted by a resolution that the appellant has no right to remain in possession, we are not impressed with the arguments. At this stage, we are only concerned with his admitted possession of the demised premises. What rights would flow from a contract between him and his employer is a matter to be adjudicated in his application filed under Order XXI, Rules 98 and 99, CPC At this stage, it is premature to go into and record any finding in that behalf. The learned Counsel for the first respondent also repeatedly sought to bring to our notice that on account of the orders of the Court officer passed by the High Court the maintenance cost has been mounting up due to the delay in disposal of the proceedings in various courts. Even with regard to that, we are not impressed with the same. Since the letter of the law should be strictly adhered to, we find that high-handed action taken by respondents 2, 3 and 4 in having the appellant dispossessed without due process of law, cannot be overlooked nor condoned. Even with regard to that, we are not impressed with the same. Since the letter of the law should be strictly adhered to, we find that high-handed action taken by respondents 2, 3 and 4 in having the appellant dispossessed without due process of law, cannot be overlooked nor condoned. The Court cannot blink at their unlawful conduct to dispossess the appellant from the demised property and would say that the status quo be maintained. If the Court give acceptance to such high-handed action, there will be no respect for rule of law and unlawful elements would take hold of the due process of law for ransom and it would be a filed day for anarchy. Due process of law would be put to ridicule in the estimate of the law abiding citizens and rule of law would remain a mortuary. 14. Having regard to the facts of the case, I am fully satisfied that the action of respondent 2 to 4 was illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, in as much as, respondent No. 2 had no authority under the law even to entertain such an application for eviction of a person who is admittedly in occupation by virtue of a tenancy. Even the law does not recognize any agreement which gives a blanket power to the Court to pass a decree for eviction. Reference may be made to Sec. 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. Sec. 11 of the said Act begins with a non obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or law to the contrary a tenant in possession of building shall not be evicted, expect in execution of a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction obtained on one or more of the grounds, namely, breach of tenancy, sub-letting, default, personal necessity." 15. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, if respondents are, left let off without any sort of punishment by this Court, the very demand of justice shall not be fulfilled. However, in view of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has realised his mistake and put the petitioner in possession of the shop, I am not going to pass any harsh order but the authorities, namely, respondents 2 to 4, must be saddled with some cost which shall be borne out from their own pocket. However, in view of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has realised his mistake and put the petitioner in possession of the shop, I am not going to pass any harsh order but the authorities, namely, respondents 2 to 4, must be saddled with some cost which shall be borne out from their own pocket. In the circumstances, I am left with no option but to dispose of this writ application, as the main relief sought for by the petitioner has been redressed, with cost of Rs. 2500.00 against each of the respondents 2 to 4 payable to the High Court Legal Aid Committee. If the amount is not paid within one month from today, the High Court Legal Aid Committee will be entitled to recover the same from them by execution of this order as decree. 16. It is made clear that in the event respondent No. 5 succeeds in appeal, he shall be entitled to execute decree that may be passed in his favour.