JUDGMENT By the Court.—This is an extreme case wherein police officials of District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi have taken possession of a private movable property (Forklift Truck) and have kept in police custody, depriving the person, who own and ply the same, of his right. They have shown indulgence in a pure and simple private dispute, without any authority of law shown to this Court. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that aforesaid truck belongs to petitioner No. 2 and when he was using the same, all of sudden police authorities intervened and seized it by illegally trespassing his premises, without any authority of law and have kept the same in police custody. 3. Taking cognizance of his complaint and the alleged highhandedness of police authorities, by our order dated 27th June, 2014, we required respondent No. 2 to inform, as to in what circumstances and authority aforesaid forklift truck had been taken in police custody/possession. 4. We notice at this stage, that petitioner No. 2 earlier, raised a grievance that police authorities have taken possession of his truck and for release thereof, made a representation to Superintendent of Police (S.P.) when no decision was taken thereon, this Court in writ petition No. 21860 of 2014 directed respondent No. 2 (S.P.) to decide petitioners’ representation, whereupon, he passed order dated 13th June, 2014, in which, it is admitted that aforesaid truck has been taken in possession by police on 7th April, 2014 but what has further been said is that there is a dispute with respect to ownership of the said truck, and it has been kept in police station for its safety only, so that it may be released to its real owner. Thereafter respondent No. 2, (S.P.) also took a decision for releasing Truck to its alleged real owners Zafar Hasanain Ansari and Hazi Abdul Kalam Ansari partners of M/s. Eastern Mill Pvt. Ltd (Rahimpur) Raya Suriyawan Road, Bhadohi, though at the time of taking possession, it was with Jafar Iqabal Ansari, petitioner No. 2, Director, M/s. Eastern Mill Pvt. Ltd (Rahimpur) Raya Suriyawan Road, Bhadohi. 5. An affidavit has been filed before this Court pursuant to the order dated 27th June, 2014, which shows that aforesaid Forklift Truck (Model GX 150D Serial No. 15320) was in possession of Jafar Iqabal Ansari, petitioner No. 2, who claims himself to be the owner thereof. 5. An affidavit has been filed before this Court pursuant to the order dated 27th June, 2014, which shows that aforesaid Forklift Truck (Model GX 150D Serial No. 15320) was in possession of Jafar Iqabal Ansari, petitioner No. 2, who claims himself to be the owner thereof. A complaint was made by Hazi Abdul Kalam Ansari and Zafar Hasanain Ansari, two brothers of petitioner No. 2 that Jafar Iqabal Ansari has illegally taken away the aforesaid truck and on such complaint, respondent No. 3 took cognizance of the matter, directed Senior Sub Inspector, R.K. Dixit, respondent No. 4 to conduct enquiry and thereupon the aforesaid truck was taken in possession by respondent No. 4 and kept in police custody vide GD Entries No. 17 and 39 dated 8th April, 2014. 6. In the entire affidavit, respondent No. 2 has not explained, as to how and under what provision police could intervene in this case, when no first information report was lodged regarding a cognizable or non-cognizable offence, nor there was any order, otherwise passed by any competent Court of law or any other authority, authorizing police to ensure handing over possession of aforesaid truck to any particular individual nor does the police possess any authority at all to determine the issue of ownership. 7. Learned Standing Counsel, when required in presence of respondent No. 2, who is personally present, also could not dispute that the entire exercise in this case on the part of police authorities is blatantly illegal and shows total misuse of power on their part. He finds no provision, under which, action of respondent police authorities seizing truck or depriving petitioners’ possession thereof, could be justified. 8. In these facts and circumstances, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 13.6.2014 passed by respondent No. 2. We direct the respondents to forthwith return the aforesaid truck to petitioners and let parties settle their dispute in common law before the appropriate forum. 9. We are also of the view that the respondents having denied petitioners benefit of user of truck for the last almost more than two months, must have caused substantial loss and damage to them and, that too, on account of blatant illegal action on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the petitioners by way of compensation are also entitled to exemplary cost which we quantify to Rs. 50,000/-. 10. Therefore, the petitioners by way of compensation are also entitled to exemplary cost which we quantify to Rs. 50,000/-. 10. The writ petition is allowed as directed above, with cost of Rs. 50,000/- against respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, which shall be paid by them in equal proportion within two months to petitioner No. 2. —————