JUDGMENT:---Heard learned Advocates for both the parties. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached for restoration of his right under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India in respect of the premises in dispute. He has further claimed compensation for unlawful locking of the shop premises w.e.f. 17-3-1998. It is the petitioner's case that the shop premises bearing H. No. 152 situated in Tofkhana Bazar, Cantonment, Aurangabad were taken on lease in 1996 by his father and that he was running in the said premises a cloth shop in the name and style as "Santosh Cloth Stores". Later in 1985, the petitioner's father and respondent No. 7 entered into a partnership deed and it was agreed between them to run the said cloth shop in the name and style as "M/s. Gurukripa Cloth Centre". In 1986, death occurred to the petitioner's father and thereafter on 29-8-1986, there was an agreement of partnership between the petitioner, respondent No. 7 Shakuntalabai and her son Atul respondent No. 8 to run the said cloth shop in the same premises. It was further agreed amongst them that each of the plaintiffs and respondent No. 8 will have a share of 25% while respondent No. 7 will have a share of 50% in the profits and losses of the firm. The shop premises belong to Shankarlal Munnalal Darak who died in March 1998. The respondent No. 6 is the son of deceased Shankarlal. 3. Admittedly, there is a dispute pending between the tenants on one hand and the landlord on the other hand. Both have filed civil suits against each other and the same are pending in the Civil Court. The landlord has filed Rent Case No. 69 of 1997 against the petitioner for getting possession of the shop premises. He has also filed Regular Civil Suit No. 631 of 1997 against respondent No. 7 for perpetual injunction restraining her from subletting the suit premises. The petitioner himself has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 134 of 1998 against the landlord for perpetual injunction restraining him from obstructing in his possession. It appears that one Balkisan has filed Special Civil Suit No. 302 of 1993 against Shankarlal and others for partition of the joint family properties including the shop premises in question. 4. The petitioner himself has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 134 of 1998 against the landlord for perpetual injunction restraining him from obstructing in his possession. It appears that one Balkisan has filed Special Civil Suit No. 302 of 1993 against Shankarlal and others for partition of the joint family properties including the shop premises in question. 4. It appears that some time in January 1998, there was a quarrel between the landlord and the tenants. The police apprehended breach of peace and, therefore, filed two chapter cases under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Chapter Case No. 35 of 1998 was filed against the present respondent No. 6 while Chapter Case No. 36 of 1998 was filed against the petitioner his son Yogesh and one Subhash Balchand Mugdia. The quarrel was in connection with possession of the shop premises. The police put lock on the said shop and retained the key thereof with them. According to the petitioner, this act on the part of the police was illegal and not justified. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 9 of 1998 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad and prayed for a direction to the Police Inspector of Cantonment Police Station to hand over the key of the shop premises to him. In reply to the said application, the police filed their say stating the circumstances under which they were constrained to put a lock on the shop premises. It was stated in the say that they had no objection if, the key of the shop premises was returned to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, however, found that the application was not maintainable under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He, therefore, rejected the application on 28-1-1999. Consequently, the key of the shop remained with the police. On 18-2-1999, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking the above mentioned reliefs. 5. So far as the relief regarding restoration of the petitioner's right to carry on his business in the shop premises in question is concerned, the police have already returned the key to him. Therefore, Shri Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioner, does not press that relief. 6. Shri Deshmukh, however, contended before us that the act of police authorities to put a lock upon the shop premises and retain the key with them w.e.f. 17-3-1998 was not at all justified. Therefore, Shri Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioner, does not press that relief. 6. Shri Deshmukh, however, contended before us that the act of police authorities to put a lock upon the shop premises and retain the key with them w.e.f. 17-3-1998 was not at all justified. This fact, according to him, entitles the petitioner to claim compensation. Shri M.N. Nawandar, learned Advocate for respondents Nos. 7 and 8 submitted before us that the petitioner alone is not the tenant of the shop premises in question. He pointed out that respondents Nos. 7 and 8 are also partners in the business called "Gurukripa Cloth Stores", which is being run in the shop premises in dispute. He pointed out that the petitioner has a share of 25% only in the said business whereas respondents Nos. 7 and 8 together have this remaining where of 75%. Shri Challani, learned Advocate for respondent No. 6 contended before us that the petitioner was not in possession of the shop premises in question and, therefore, he will not be entitled to claim any relief. 7. It may be pointed out that in this petition, the relief claimed by the petitioner is limited to the extent of getting compensation for the alleged unauthorised locking of the shop premises. Already civil disputes are pending between the landlord and the tenants and this Court will not decide the parties civil rights in respect of the shop premises. The material question to be considered is whether the police authorities were justified in putting a lock to the shop premises. 8. On behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4, Police Inspector. V.T. Pawar has filed his affidavit wherein it is stated that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 was likely to result in causing disturbance of peace in the locality and, therefore, under the provisions of section 39 of the Bombay Police Act and under the oral directions of the superiors, a lock was put on the shop premises. Inspector Pawar has, however, admitted that "I say and submit that it is true that the said act of putting lock to the premises was not under any written order and not under any provision of law but under the bona fide belief and to avoid any incident which may result in disturbing the peace in the locality." 9. Inspector Pawar has, however, admitted that "I say and submit that it is true that the said act of putting lock to the premises was not under any written order and not under any provision of law but under the bona fide belief and to avoid any incident which may result in disturbing the peace in the locality." 9. In our opinion, in view of this clearcut admission, the act of putting a lock on the shop premises in dispute is obviously wrong and illegal. There is nothing on record to indicate that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 was of such a nature as to cause disturbance of public peace. It was only a dispute between the landlord and the tenants. Assuming that there was a likelihood of breach of public peace, still there was no necessity to put a lock on the shop premises, particularly when a preventive action under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code was initiated against both the parties. It is further material to note that no proceeding under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code was initiated by the police. It will, therefore, be clear that there was really no justification or warrant for the police to take such a step of locking the shop premises. 10. The police have now returned the key of the shop premises to the petitioner. However, the fact remains that for a period of about one year, the shop premises remained under lock and thereby the petitioner and his partners could not carry on their business of selling cloth. In our opinion, the concerned police have thus clearly violated the fundamental right of the petitioner and his partners to carry on their business. Shri Varale, learned A.P.P. submitted before us that the mistake committed by the police was bona fide and it was for the purpose of preventing breach of public peace. He, therefore, submitted before us that a caution would be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. We are however, not very much impressed by this submission made by Shri Varale. We find that the act of the police to put lock to the shop premises was totally unwarranted and unjustified. Besides, the said act is patently illegal. 11. We are however, not very much impressed by this submission made by Shri Varale. We find that the act of the police to put lock to the shop premises was totally unwarranted and unjustified. Besides, the said act is patently illegal. The contention that the said action was taken in exercise of the powers under section 39 of the Bombay Police Act is without any basis because admittedly there was no order passed by any authority to take any such step. This being the position, we are of the opinion that the petitioner would be entitled to get compensation from respondents Nos. 1 to 4. However, it needs to be clarified that the compensation which is going to be awarded to him will be for himself and his two partners i.e. respondents Nos. 6 and 7 who were jointly running the cloth business in the same shop. 12. As regards the quantum of compensation, we think that grant of token compensation would be proper in this case since the police have fairly admitted that it was a mistake on their part to have put a lock on the shop premises in dispute. We, therefore, fix the amount of compensation at Rs. 5,000/- and the same shall be paid or deposited by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in this Court within four weeks from the date of this order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the rights of the parties relating to the shop premises. The same will be decided by the Civil Court and the Rent Court in which suits are pending. We also make it clear that the amount of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- will be shared by the petitioner, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in proportion to their respective shares. 13. Accordingly, Rule made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----