Judgment : 1. The writ petition is filed for issuing appropriate direction to the respondents to immediately unlock the office premises and two residential quarters of the petitioner is Prospect Estate, Naduvattam Village, Udhagamandalam Taluk, Nilgiris District. 2. The brief facts which are relevant for consideration are : The petitioner is one of the major estates in Gudalur Taluk engaged in manufacture and export of tea and spices having approximately 8300 acres prime plantation lands in the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu with 4500 workers, due to various reasons. The plantation started incurring loss by serious labour problems leading to number of proceeding before various departments for recovery of various dues to the workmen and during the pendency of such proceedings, settlement between the management and the workmen was arrived at which is not accepted by one section of the employees giving rise to other problems and litigation and one of such proceedings is O.S. No. 79 of 2002 filed on the file of District Munsif, Gudalur by the company against some of the workmen for the relief of injunction and the suit is filed along with I.A. No. 358 of 2002 for interim injunction. The interim injunction was granted in favour of the company which was appealed against in CMA.57 of 2003 before the District Court, Ooty by the workmen. Pending CMA the matter is referred to Lok Adalat without the consent of the petitioner and the same compelled the petitioner to file WP. No. 29844 of 2003. Though the single judge dismissed the writ petition, the matter was withdrawn from Lok Adalat. Then the petitioner filed C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1606 of 2003 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order of District Court. Pending CMA, the revision petition was disposed of subject to certain directions and the petitioner filed Cont.Petn. 101 of 2004 as if the workmen did not honour the directions subject to which CRP is disposed of, and the Contempt petition was finally disposed of by directing the District Munsif to dispose of the main suit within the specified time. Pending suit, the petitioner was issued with summon to appear for Lok Adalat on specified date for hearing. The summons was again challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 4237 of 2005 and the High Court is while admitting the writ petition pleased to grant the stay of impugned summons. 3. Pending suit, the petitioner was issued with summon to appear for Lok Adalat on specified date for hearing. The summons was again challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 4237 of 2005 and the High Court is while admitting the writ petition pleased to grant the stay of impugned summons. 3. In the meanwhile, according to the petitioner the District legal service authority headed by the District Judge and the District Collector with their men, trespassed into the petitioners estate and the revenue officials have as directed by the District Legal Services Authority and the District Collector/the respondents 2 and 3 herein sealed the main office and two residential staff quarters. 4. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in trespassing into and locking the main office, and two residential staff quarters is neither a judicial or quasi judicial but is unauthorised and unlawful. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the action of the 2nd respondent/District Legal Services Authority in once again referring the matter before Lok Adalat even after the impugned proceedings is set aside in W.P. No. 4237 of 2005 and even after the disposal of C.M.A. 57 of 2003 amounts to abuse of process of law and mala fide in nature and the petitioner ‘ s representation to the 2nd respondent/District Legal Services Authority to unlock the premises was in vain and the 2nd respondent refused to do so by saying that the seal is kept by the 3rd respondent and his representation to 3rd respondent/District collector was not even responded as such the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition for the relief as cited supra. 6. Though, the respondents herein have not filed any counter denying the serious averments raised in the writ petition the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the copy of the letter addressed to him by the executive officer, Naduvattam Panchayat to the effect that the company was due to pay huge amount towards property tax and the writ petition filed by the company against the demand notice in W.P. Nos. 6257 and 6258 of 1997 and W.M.P. Nos. 6257 and 6258 of 1997 and W.M.P. Nos. 10351 and 10352 of 1997 ended in favour of the panchayat and the same is followed by the recovery proceedings against the company after giving due notice to the company and the official concerned has in exercise of the power vested in them attached the property and sealed the factory and the machinery ‘ s were brought for auction, resulting in O.S. No. 36 of 2007 pending on the file of Gudalur Court filed by the company against the action of the panchyat in sealing the factory and in the event of the relief being granted it will amount to raising the order of attachment which in turn is likely to prejudice the right of the department to recover the dues. 7. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records. 8. The typed set of papers produced herein contains (i) the affidavit filed in petition W.P. No. 4237 of 2005 (ii) order made in W.P. 1362 of 2007 (iii) the letter from the District Legal Services Authority dated 3.7.2008, 29.1.2010 addressed to Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (iv) report dated 24.3.2005 submitted to Registrar General, High Court and 2.6.2010 and 24.6.2010 addressed to petitioner company and (v) the representation of the petitioner company to the District Collector. 9. The perusal of all these documents would reveal that the nature and extent of the role played by the District Legal Services Authority in the matter of labour and other problem prevailing in the tea estate of the petitioner company in Naduvattam Village, Nilgiriis District. The District Legal Services Authority has in addition to judicial intervention exercised excessive jurisdiction and excessive authority in interfering with the labour problems between the management and the workers. The petitioner has approached our High Court more than once against such excessive exercise of power vested upon the District Legal Services Authority and our High Court has in W.P. No. 4237 of 2005 set aside the proceedings of the District authority in summoning the petitioner company to Lok Adalat in L.A.O.P. No. 1 of 2005. 10. The petitioner has approached our High Court more than once against such excessive exercise of power vested upon the District Legal Services Authority and our High Court has in W.P. No. 4237 of 2005 set aside the proceedings of the District authority in summoning the petitioner company to Lok Adalat in L.A.O.P. No. 1 of 2005. 10. The District Legal Services Authority along with the District Collector despite the objections raised by the company held discussion with officers belonging to various departments, senior counsel, workmen union, District authority and Revenue officials etc., and gone to the extent of discussing the feasibility of taking over the management by the workmen themselves and cooperative basis etc., and held spot inspection along with district authorities police officials, higher official of labour department, labour plantation and senior advocates and bank official who are the bankers for the company etc. 11. The grievance raised by the petitioner that, only in the course of such spot inspection the District Legal Services Authority and the District Collector have sealed the office premises and the two residential quarters which is sought to be removed herein. Though the District Legal Services Authority in his report dated 24.3.2005 submitted to Registrar General, High Court enclosed at pages 47 to 57 of the typed set of papers explained in detail about the various problems prevailing in tea estate the proceedings pending by and against the company and the severity of the problems of workmen and the failure of the management to pay dues of the workmen etc., and the circumstances in which the matter was referred to Lok Adalat the suo moto discussion held by the District Legal Services Authority with the other officials and the reason for making spot inspection etc., the same does not appear to be convincing and justifying the role played by the District Legal Services Authority in the matter under dispute. 12. Be that as may be, the fact that the factory premises and office premises and two residential quarters are locked in the course of spot inspection by the District Legal Services Authority and the District Collector remain undisputed. 12. Be that as may be, the fact that the factory premises and office premises and two residential quarters are locked in the course of spot inspection by the District Legal Services Authority and the District Collector remain undisputed. The report submitted by the District Legal Services Authority through its Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority/1st respondent on 3.7.2008 and the reply given by the same authority to the petitioner on 2.6.2010 enclosed at pages 19 and 20, 37 to 41 of the typed set of papers reveal that the delegation consisting of District Judge, District Collector, Superintendent of Police, Joint Commissioner, labour and different authorities from different department and the senior advocates visited the office premises and during their visit, the doors are found locked and the Thasildar as directed by the District Collector put additional locks and sealed the main office building and the two residential quarters bearing door No. 7/164 and 7/165 and the same is done in the presence of District Judge in his capacity as Chairman of District Legal Services Authority and other Higher officials of various other departments. The petitioner ‘ s request given to the 2nd respondent/District Legal Services Authority to unlock the seal is rejected on two grounds that the seal is put up by Tahsildar as directed by the District Collector and there is no specific direction to the 2nd respondent by the High Court in its order dated 17.9.2009 made in WP. No. 4237 of 2005 for removing the seal. The further representation given by the petitioner to the District Collector is not at all responded. As already referred to, both the respondents 2 and 3 have not filed any counter denying the serious allegations made in the writ petition and by explaining the authority under which the suo-moto discussion are held and spot visit is made and sealing is done. 13. Though the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the copy of the letter of the executive officer of Naduvattam Panchayat as above referred to it is not the case of either of the respondents 2 and 3 that the direction issued to the Tahsildar by the District Collector to seal the premises and residential quarters is in continuation of the proceedings initiated for the recovery of property tax arrears. 14. 14. Further, the reading of the order made in batch of writ petitions on 17.9.2009 enclosed at pages 21 to 33 of the typed set of papers reveal that already recovery proceedings are initiated by attachment of total extent of 321.5 acres of lands along with other construction for the recovery of provident fund due of the employees and there was already proclamation of sale and the same is also challenged in WP. No. 6603 of 2004 which is one of the writ petition disposed of on 17.9.2009 and the High Court has in the common order dated 17.9.2009 dismissed W.P. No. 6603 of 2004 and disposed of W.P. No. 1362 of 2007 filed by the employees, by directing the competent authority to proceed in accordance with law for recovery of dues of the workman by bringing the property for auction etc., 15. Though the report filed by the District Legal services authority to the Registrar General, High Court would show that one more lock was found on the date of their spot visit and the same is in pursuance of attachment of the properties for recovery of Provident fund arrears and Property tax arrears, no document is produced to show the mode of any order of attachment by locking the premises. Further, the recovery proceedings permitted to go on by common order dated 17.9.2009 made in the batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 1362 of 2007 etc., is only in respect of an extent of 326.51 acres of plantations lands with other constructions as stated in para 8 of the order dated 17.9.2009 and the main office premises and the residential quarters which is the subject matter of the present writ petition is not covered in the earlier order of attachment. It is also disclosed in the copy of the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer (i/c), Naduvattam Panchayat, Nilgiris District that the attachment proceedings of the lands in question for recovery of the property tax arrears is in respect of factory premises and the machineries made available in the factory. It is also disclosed in the copy of the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer (i/c), Naduvattam Panchayat, Nilgiris District that the attachment proceedings of the lands in question for recovery of the property tax arrears is in respect of factory premises and the machineries made available in the factory. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that as there was no activities going on and as it was not occupied by any one the submission so made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner also deserves acceptance by this Court, other lock found in the main building and the residential quarters as referred to in the report of the District Legal Services Authority in the lock put up by the management in order to protect the building in question from interference of some third parties. 16. However, as the action of the 3rd respondent/District Collector in directing the sealing of the office premises and the residential quarters in the presence of District Judge is now found to be not in furtherance of any of the proceedings initiated for recovery of property tax due or other dues of workmen. In the additional lock put up over the lock of the management at the office premises and residential quarters is per se unfair, arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to stand which would compel this Court to issue appropriate direction to the 3rd respondent for the removal of the same as sought for herein. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.