M SIVA REDDY Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15-9-1989 issued by the Circle Inspector of Police,Yerraguntla of Cuddapah District, the 2nd respondent herein, by which he has permitted the respondents 4 to 6 to enjoy the lands admeasuring Ac.9-66 cents of Mittapally village. The petitioners 1 and 2 contend that they have obtained Ac. 14.00 comprising several survey numbers of Kotluru village of Vallur Mandalam in Cuddapah District on lease from M. Naga Subba Reddy, the 7th respondent herein in the month of March, 1980 and that they had been in possession of the same. The petitioners 3 and 4 contend that they have also taken Ac.9-66 cents of land in the same village from the same owner and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Respondents 4 to 6 tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners of a total extent of Ac.23-66 cents and two cases were filed in ATC 5 and 6 of 1986 on the file of the Special Officer (Principal District Munsiff; Cuddapah) seeking a relief of declaration that the petitioners are the perpetual tenants of Naga Subba Reddy and claiming pre-emption for purchase and also injunction restraining the respondents 4 to 6 from interfering with their possession. Interlocutory applications were filed in I.A.Nos. 1576 and 577/ 1986 in A.T.C Nos. 5 and 6 of 1986 and the Special Officer, Cuddapah has granted temporary injunction orders in favour of the petitioners restraining the respondents 4 to 7 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the lands mentioned above. When there was threat of breach of injunction orders, the petitioners had filed petitions seekingpolice protection and the same was also allowed by order dated 31-12-1986. It is not disputed that the temporary injunction orders and police protection orders had become final. Inspite of the orders passed in civil proceedings, the 2nd respondent by his proceedings dated 15-9-1989 allowed the respondent No.4 herein to cultivate the land admeasuring Ac. 9-66 cents also subject matter of O.S.No. 148/86 and ATC No.6/86 and with regard to other land he ordered that no party should enter the land. According to him, this measure is taken temporarily to maintain the law and order situation and subject to the decision of the court. At the outset, I have to say that this order of the 2nd respondent is a clear contempt of court, as it is an affront to judicial decision and it interferes with the court of justice. When the court of law, on whom the power of adjudication of civil dispute is conferred, passes an order, even as an interim measure pending final decision and when the interim orders hold the field, the executive, more so, the police officials should strive to see that the said orders of the court are implemented and that nobody should act contrary to the said orders of the court. It is distressing to note that the Police officer like the 2nd respondent who is obliged under law to maintain rule of law by implementing the court's order has sought to interfere with the course of justice being the guardian of law and order. No police officer is entitled to take adjudicatory process of civil dispute on to himself. It is the function of the police officer to maintain the law and order which a part of rule of law and whenever there is a judicial order subsisting, maintaining of law and order only means to maintain the effect of the said judicial order by implementing the same and not by violating the same. If the respondents 4 to 7 were trying to enter the possession even in the teeth of the injunction orders granted against them, it was the bounden duty of both the respondents 2 and 3 ie., the Circle Inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police to prevent the said persons i.e., respondents 4 to 7 from taking possession so long as the injunction order subsists. But, in the instant case, the respondents 2 and 3 have far exceeded their powers by allowing the 4th respondent who suffered an injunction order to cultivate the land and it is the clearest case of an affront to judicial order and of contempt of court What is more, the respondents 2 and 3 wanted to play safe by seeking the legal advice of Assistant Government Pleader who readily obliged the respondents 2 and3 rendering advice that they can do so. An Advocate, more so, a Government Pleader who is a Law Officer is a part of the court and it is the duty of every advocate to see that the rule of law prevails in this country and the judicial orders passed are not interfered with by anybody. A Government Pleader need not feel that since he is appearing for the Government, he is obliged to render advice to the executive Government or its officers including the police, to suit their needs. An Advocate and a Government Pleader are officers of the court and it is their bounden duty to see that the judicial orders are strictly implemented and should not allow them to be trampled with.

(2.) IN view of what is stated supra, the impugned proceedings dt. l5-9-1989 issued by the 2nd respondent are set aside. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.