K P BABULAL Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE CHIKBALLAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring that the action of the respondent in sealing the two iron safes of the petitioner in his shop premises on 21-1-1977 was illegal, unauthorised and vid contravening the orders granted by this Court in WP.5840 of 1975 and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to remove the seals of the two iron safes kept in the shop premises and to hand over the keys and the articles to the petitioner forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he is a licensed pawn-broker carrying on the business of pawn-broking in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act, 1961 and the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961. In Octr, 1975, the Karnataka Debt Relief Ordinance was promulgated whereby certain debts of the debtors as defined in the Ordinance came to be extinguished. Aggrieved by this Ordinance, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP. 5840 of 1975 along with various other pawn-brokers. The petitioner is at serial No. 131. Subsequently the Karnataka Debt Relief Ordinance was repealed by Karnataka Debt Relief Act of 1976. In that writ petition this Hon'ble Court had stayed the operation of the Ordinance and later the Act, subject to certain conditions. Further, this Court ordered that the provisions of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, shall not be enforced against the petitioners pending disposal of the petition subject to four conditions. The conditions imposed were :

(3.) The petitioner furnished the inventory within the time stipulated. His case is that in accordance with condition No.2, he had not sold or disposed of in any other way the articles pledged with him. No debtor as defined under the Act had approached the respondent and claimed the release or redemption of the pledged articles by depositing any amount with the respondent in order to secure the release of the pledged articles after the above quoted stay order was passed. His case is, in fact that the articles pledged with the petitioner are by those persons who do not fall within the definition of 'Debtor' under the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (to be hereinafter called the KDR Act) . Subsequent to the stay order in WP.5840 of 1975 several pawnors approached the petitioner and demanded for redemption of the pledged articles by them under the provisions of the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act, 1961 (to be hereinafter called the 'Act') . When the petitioner brought to their notice the terms of the stay granted by this Court in WP.5840 of 1975 the pawnors made representation to him that were not debtors coming within the definition of the KDR Act. They gave a declaration to that effect and pressed the petitioner to receive the amount and return the articles pledged on the ground that they have every right to claim redemption of the pledged articles without approaching the respondent and get a clearance from him. The petitioner was compelled and threatened by not only the pawnors but important persons in the town saying that they would forcibly seize the articles if he failed to return the same. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached the respondent and acquainted him in or about March 1976 about this aspect of the matter and the respondent orally stated that there is no bar whatsoever to return the articles to those persons who do not come within the purview of the Act. In these circumstances, the petitioner released 1041 articles out of 1817 articles shown in the inventory and there remained in his, possession 776 articles. In the course of his business 97 articles were pledged. He had kept in all 876 pledged articles in two iron safes in his shop premises.