LIBRA CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCE LIMITED Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE VENNANDUR POLICE STATION NAMAKKAL DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W. P. NO. 19014 of 2003 this writ petition was originally filed seeking for the issuance of writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3, the Inspector of Police, Vennandur Police Station, Namakkal District; the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rasipuram, Namakkal District; and the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal police station, Namakkal District, to give necessary police protection to execute the warrant issued by the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal so that the petitioner would be able to take back possession of the property. The said writ petition was filed by Libra Construction and Finance Ltd. , by arraying the above said three respondents along with the management of Tamil Nadu Tobacco Ltd. , as the fourth respondent.

(2.) THE case of the writ petitioner was that the writ petitioner is the owner of the property in which the fourth respondent was running a company on rental basis for manufacture of cigarette. The fourth respondent vacated the premises in the year 2000, but failed to handover possession to the petitioner. The monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 66,000/- and there was rental arrears from November 2000 onwards. Hence, the petitioner filed a civil suit in O. S. No. 380 of 2000 before the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal for eviction. The suit was decreed on 25. 09. 2000. To execute the decree the petitioner filed an application in REP No. 472 of 2002. However, the warrant issued by the executing Court could not be executed because of the resistance of the employees of the Tamilnadu Tobacco company, the fourth respondent. Hence, the bailiff could not take possession of the vacant premises and returned the warrant. The Subordinate Court, by his order dated 24. 04. 2003, passed an order to get possession of the property with the help of police protection. When the petitioner along with the bailiff approached the police, the respondents officials refused to give protection. Hence this writ petition was filed. This Court allowed the writ petition by order dated 25. 08. 2003 directing respondents 1 to 3 to give police protection to the petitioner for execution of the warrant issued by the competent civil court. That order came to be passed on the ground that the writ petition was admitted on 10. 07. 2003 and notice had been ordered to be issued and repeated adjournments were granted for the respondents to get instructions and in spite of all such indulgence granted by this Court the Government Counsel appearing for the respondent was not in a position to say as to why the police authorities, respondents 1 to 3 have refused to give police protection.

(3.) WHEN the matter stood thus, respondents 1 to 3 filed an application in WPMP No. 32977 of 2003 to clarify the order dated 25. 08. 2003 by putting forth a fresh fact to the effect that there was a litigation in respect of shifting of the premises of the fourth respondent between the management and the workers which warranted the management to file a writ petition in WP. No. 16871 of 2001 in which a direction was given to the State Government to refer the dispute between the parties under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication. On appeal by the fourth respondent in writ appeal No. 2510 of 2001 the Division Bench, while confirming the order of the learned single Judge directed the management, fourth respondent to reopen the mill forthwith. In that order, while considering the contention made by the counsel, the Division Bench observed that until a decision was taken by the Government to refer the matter under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the factory shall run only at the existing place. That order was further carried on appeal to the Supreme Court in SLP No. 7787-7789 of 2002 and are pending.