SUBHIKSHA TRADING SERVICES LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the respondents 3 to 6 on the basis of the complaint/representation submitted by the petitioner dated 4.2.2010.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Company doing retail trading services in respect of FMCGS and has a large number of outlets all over India and it is providing goods at discounted price by the process of direct marketing by obviating the role of middlemen. After September, 2008, the Company expanded rapidly with 1600 outlets and ran into deep financial crunch and for restructuring the Company by closing certain branches, necessary schemes have been placed under the provisions of Section 391 Companies Act, 1956 before this Court and the said company petition is pending.

(3.) The 6th respondent filed an eviction petition in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2009 seeking eviction in respect of a non-residential premises at Door No. 155 Medavakkam Main Road, Keelkattalai, Chennai-117. The 6th respondent and two others (namely the wife and mother of the 6th respondent) received a refundable security deposit of Rs. 1.50 lakhs from the petitioner and agreed to receive rent at Rs. 9,500/- per month. According to the petitioner, in the rent control proceedings, the petitioner has not received any notice till date. During routine verification of the said premises on 1.2.2010, it was found that the locks at the property were replaced by the 6th respondent by breaking the lock open and forcibly entering into the premises by approaching the third respondent Police. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the breaking was made under the supervision of the Police and Tahsildar. The Police refused to give any further details and thereafter the petitioner applied for the copies of the documents under the RTI Act. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the 6th respondent filed a complaint before the third respondent Police Station stating that the petitioner had not paid the rents and therefore the lock had to be opened and move the materials available in the premises. The third respondent instead of directing the 6th respondent to move the competent Civil Court, registered CSR No. 566 of 2009 on 28.12.2009 and sought for support from the 5th respondent Tahsildar for supervising the breaking. The 5th respondent by order dated 7.1.2010 provided staff for breaking.