Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3485 (ALL)

Gyanmati Devi Gupta v. State of U. P.

2015-11-04

HULUVADI G.RAMESH, SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Huluvadi G. Ramesh and Shamsher Bahadur Singh,JJ. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioners, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and perused the record. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and restraining the respondents from disturbing and interfering with the petitioners' possession over their disputed property and to issue direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 6 to provide full protection to the lives and property of the petitioners and further to issue direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and restraining the respondent nos. 7 to 15, their agents, servants and allies from raising any construction and creating any interference on the petitioners' disputed property in any manner. 4. It appears that in connection with the disputed property some litigation in between the private individual and the petitioners is going on and in furtherance of enforcing the order of injunction, granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner is seeking protection of the property by filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court on a Division Bench's decision of this Court in the case of Shakti Kumari Gupta (Smt.) vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2006 All. C.J. 892 regarding the maintainability of the writ petition etc. In respect of the dispute, which is going on between the petitioners and the private parties (herein) invoked the Civil Court jurisdiction and some orders have been passed by the Civil Court granting interim injunction and for getting the benefits of injunction order, so granted by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner, the petitioners approached this Court. 5. So far as relief prayed for providing security for protection of the life of the petitioners as well as property is concerned, the remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, where the matter in respect of the property is pending and some injunction order has been passed. The Civil Court on consideration of prima facie case, irreparable loss and injury and balance of convenience may pass orders. 6. The Civil Court on consideration of prima facie case, irreparable loss and injury and balance of convenience may pass orders. 6. So far as threat to life of the petitioners is concerned, there are provisions under Cr.P.C., under which the petitioners may seek remedy by approaching the Civil Court. Even otherwise also, if there is any apprehension of threat to life of the petitioners, an F.I.R. should have been lodged invoking the provisions of Cr.P.C. and if the same is not complied with, the petitioners may approach the higher authority for getting the First Information lodged and for seeking police protection, an application for this purpose may also be moved before the Civil Court, which may pass necessary orders after holding an enquiry as to whether it is a matter of fact and if there is any threat or apprehension to the life of the petitioners, then there is further remedy available under the provisions of Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to invoke law regarding extending the remedy of protection of life and property under the garb of threat to life of the petitioners on apprehension of property might be grabbed by the private respondents incidentally for which an interim injunction granted by the civil court is already operating in favour of the petitioners, which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction, since there are disputed question of facts are involved. However, if there are violation of terms of the interim injunction granted by the Civil Court, the petitioners have the remedy to file contempt proceedings before the civil court. 8. Apart from that if the petitioners may invoke writ jurisdiction, however, it may not be entertained against a private individual. If there is any involvement of State action then jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution cannot be invoked and only on some allegations that there is apprehension and threat to the property and the life of the petitioners is not sufficient to entertain the writ and the prayer to pass an order to issue a direction to the respondents, is not acceptable. If there is violation of fundamental right due to the State action, there is a remedy available for redressal of grievance of protection of the property which can be entertained, unless such situation warrants exercise of power under writ jurisdiction. If there is violation of fundamental right due to the State action, there is a remedy available for redressal of grievance of protection of the property which can be entertained, unless such situation warrants exercise of power under writ jurisdiction. If there is some dispute of property, which is going on between the parties, before the Civil Court, entertaining the writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for protection of life and property would amount to abuse of process of law without approaching appropriate forums for the reliefs sought for. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.