HOTEL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Case of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the Petitioner No. 1 company took lease of a property situated at Sea Beach at Puri for the purpose of starting a hotel. They availed a loan of Rs. 8,15,000/ from the State Bank of India, Puri and converted the said property to a comfortable hotel. Opp. Party No. 4 was the guarantor for the said loan. Since the Petitioner No. 1 company defaulted in repaying the loan, the State Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of the outstanding amount in the Loan Account. But subsequently, the claim of the Bank was settled and an application was filed for withdrawal of the suit. When the Managing Director of the Petitioner No. 1 company was away to Calcutta, the Opp. Party No. 4 forcibly took possession of the hotel and assumed management of the hotel from 15.3.2001. The Petitioners lodged a complaint in the Sea Beach Police Station against Opp. Party No. 4 but the local police did not initiate any action against Opp. Party No. 4 as he is well connected in the corridors of power and also yields considerable muscle power through his band of anti social henchmen. The petitioners then moved the Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa who directed the Collector, Puri to initiate action as per law. Pursuant to the direction of the Chief Secretary, Misc. Case No. 13 of 2001 was registered before the Collector, Puri and yet no action was taken against the Opp. Party No. 4. The Petitioner No. 2 then moved this Court in writ petition O.J.C. No. 12596 of 2001 praying for a direction to the authorities to protect his rights and livelihood by restoring his properties to him. On 10.10.2001 the said O.J.C. No. 12596 of 2001 was disposed of by this Court directing the Collector, Puri to dispose of the said Misc. Case No. 13 of 2001 within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the said order passed by this Court. On 27.10.2001 the Collector, Puri disposed of the Misc. Case observing that the Opp. Party No. 4 has filed O.S. No. 606 of 2001 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri claiming that under an agreement dated 5.11.1987 signed by the Managing Director of Petitioner No. 1 company and Opp. Party No. 4 the hotel was to be in possession and management of the petitioners for the first ten years after which the Opp. Party No. 4 was to, take over the management of the hotel without intervention of the Court. By the said order dated 27.10.2001 the Collector, Puri held that perhaps he is not competent to examine the dispute which has been referred to a Civil Suit and only requested the Superintendent of Police, Puri to investigate into the FIR lodged by the petitioners under the appropriate provision of law. The petitioners case in the writ petition is that the Managing Director of Petitioner No. 1 company has not signed the agreement dated 5.11.1987 and the plea put forth by Opp, Party No. 4 in the suit as well as the misc. case before the Collector, Puri was totally false and they have prayed for quashing the said order dated 27.10.2001 passed by the Collector, Puri in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2001 as well as the plaint filed by Opp. Party No. 4 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri in O.S. No. 606 of 2001. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the State of Orissa represented by the Chief Secretary, the Collector, Puri and the Superintendent of Police, Puri to restore possession of the hotel to the petitioners forthwith. Along with the writ petition the petitioners have also filed Misc. Case No. 687 of 2003 praying for a direction to the opposite parties to immediately arrest Opp. Party No. 4 and restore the petitioners properties forthwith.

(2.) ON 19.6.2003 the Court passed orders in Misc. Case No. 687 of 2003 requesting the learned Additional Government Advocate to apprise the Court as to what action has been taken by the police on the FIR of the petitioners and further directed that an affidavit be filed by the Opp. Party No. 4 as to how he entered into the premises of Hotel Repose Private Limited. Pursuant to the said order, a counter affidavit has been filed on 8.8.2003 by the Inspector in charge, Sea Beach Police Station on behalf of Opp. Party No. 3 in which it is, inter alia, stated that on 27.2.2002 a report was received from the petitioner alleging forcible trespass and removal of properties by Opp. Party No. 4 and accordingly Sea Beach P.S. Case No. 21 dated 27.2.2002 under Section 448 and 379, IPC was registered and investigation is going on. It is however stated in the said counter affidavit that the case is sub judice in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri and the writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) WHEN the matter was listed on 21.8.2003 the Court called upon Mr. Goutam Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioners, to cite any authority for the proposition that the High Court in an appropriate case can restore possession to a private person whose possession has been disturbed by another private person. On 23.9.2003 Mr. Mukherji produced before the Court a compact disc regarding the conduct of the Opp. Party No. 4 and the personnel of the Sea Beach Police Station, Puri and the Court passed orders asking the petitioners to file an affidavit indicating the contents of the compact disc and granted leave to Opp. Party No. 4 to file a counter affidavit in reply to the said affidavit. Pursuant to the said order passed on 23.9.2003 an affidavit has been filed by the Managing Director of Petitioner No. 1 company stating therein that the compact disc contains a programme recorded and telecast by a television channel in Calcutta and the programme is based on a report of the journalist who during his visit to Puri learnt that the Opp. Party No. 4 known as 'Tiki Pua' controls the entire District Administration, Shops, Markets, Hotel, Labour Office, Income Tax and Sales Tax Departments and with the help of such power wielded by him has dispossessed the true owners of the hotel including the petitioners. The Opp. Party No. 4 has filed an affidavit on 18.12.2003 praying that a copy of the said compact disc on the basis of which the petitioners have filed the affidavit on 26.9.2003 be furnished to him.