Kataria Education Society vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 233 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. This is an application moved by respondent No.3, praying that the order dated 27.1.2004, by which the writ petition was disposed of, be stayed. Respondent No.3 happens to be Paschim Vihar (Block A-1) Residents Welfare Association. Petitioner M/s.Kataria Education Society had filed the writ petition, seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Police and Station House Officer to ensure that nobody, including respondent No.3, causes any obstruction or interference in the construction activities, to be undertaken by the petitioner. Petitioner's case was that it had been allotted the land and had duly got the building plans sanctioned. Respondent No.3-Residents Welfare Association and its members were causing obstruction in the construction. There were disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3, the latter being aggrieved by the allotment of land to the petitioner and its proposal to construct a School thereon, for which the plans had been duly sanctioned. Petitioner claimed that in the civil suit, a restraint order had also been passed, which was valid, subsisting and in force, restraining respondent No.3 from interfering or causing any obstruction to the construction, which had been duly sanctioned, being raised.

2. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself on hearing the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 & 2 but without notice to respondent No.3, observing that the statutory authorities including the police have an obligation for maintenance of rule of law and to ensure that there is no breach of peace and the orders of the Courts are implemented. The observations made can in no manner be called adversorial or prejudicial to the applicant.

3. It goes without saying that the statutory authorities have an obligation to comply with the orders, passed by the Court and while disposing of the writ petition, nothing more has been noted or ordered.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 very fairly admits that the order, restraining the Residents Welfare Association from causing any obstruction is in force. He submits that the review application has been filed, which has not been decided as yet. He further submits that representations have been made to the Lt.Governor. He also claimed that allotment in favor of the petitioner has been cancelled. He submits that the plot had been allotted to one Mr.Bhim Singh in 1999. Mr.R.P.Bansal, Senior Advocate has shown in Court that the said submission is not correct as the said Mr.Bhim Singh had been allotted another plot in 2002 and the allotment of the petitioner is valid and subsisting. Be that as it may, it would be for respondent No.3 to seek a variation or stay of the orders passed by the Competent Court and in the absence thereof, it subserves the ends of justice to ensure that a party by adopting extra legal means does not obstruct the legal process by brute force or sheer numbers. In these circumstances, after hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no modification in the order, as passed is called for.