Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 363 (UTT)

Tilak Raj Talwar v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-20

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to 4 to provide protection to the petitioner’s life and liberty and also order to protect the rented property and school premises from the respondent no. 5 to 7 and their accomplices. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 & 4 to provide armed police protection at the expenses of the petitioners to protect their life and liberty.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner no. 1 is the Joint Manager of Beersheba Educational and Welfare Society, Civil Lines, Bhotia Parao, Haldwani, District Nainital, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act and looks after the affairs of the school; whereas petitioner no. 2 is the wife of petitioner no. 1 and founder member of the said society. Apart from the school building, which is owned by the society/school, the society is also having a rented building, adjacent to the school building, which is being used as a hostel of the school and also includes the residences of the staff of the school. This is the further case of the petitioners that respondent nos. 5 & 7 are the landlords and they wanted to get the building vacated without adopting due process of law and for this, they used muscle power and time and again, along with their goons, used to extend threats to the petitioners and other staff and office bearers of the society and also used to threaten them for pressurizing them to vacate the said building. The Society, through its Secretary, filed Suit No. 5 of 2016 Beersheba Educational & Welfare Society through its Secretary vs. Rajan Vinayak and others, for permanent injunction, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital. The said suit is pending; only notices have been issued to the respondents in the said suit. Thereafter, the Society filed Civil Revision No. 53 of 2016 Beersheba Educational & Welfare Society vs. Rajan Vinayak and others. On 13.07.2016, the District Judge, Nainital passed an ex parte order directing that the petitioners may not be dispossessed from the property in question without due process of law. 3. Thereafter, the Society filed Civil Revision No. 53 of 2016 Beersheba Educational & Welfare Society vs. Rajan Vinayak and others. On 13.07.2016, the District Judge, Nainital passed an ex parte order directing that the petitioners may not be dispossessed from the property in question without due process of law. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in spite of the interim order passed by the District Judge, the respondents came to the above said building with their goons and threatened the Joint Manager and his wife and other staff of the school, and asked them to vacate the building, including hostel and residence of the employee. Petitioners moved a written complaint before the Police Station, Haldwani, Nainital and the S.S.P., Nainital. When nothing was done, present writ petition has been filed. 4. We heard Mr. B.B. Sharma & Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 to 4. 5. We find that the interim order had been passed by the District Judge ex parte without hearing the respondents and that the said order is a time bound order. 6. In our view, unless the said ex parte interim order is confirmed after hearing the other party, we cannot permit the petitioners to raise claim for police protection. The said remedy is available to the petitioners, but of course, after the order is confirmed by the District Judge after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents. 7. Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in fact, on the application given by the petitioners, cognizance has been taken and proceedings under Sections 107 & 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been started. 8. In view of the above facts, we are not inclined to pass any further order. We close the writ petition without prejudice to any other right available to the petitioner to approach any other forum.