Madras High Court
Marikar (Motors) Limited vs The Superintendent Of Police on 11 May, 2022
W.P(MD)No.9633 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.05.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P(MD).No.9633 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD)No.6912 of 2022
Marikar (Motors) Limited
Nagercoil Branch,
Nagercoil Village,
Kanyakumari District,
represented by its Managing Director ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Vadasery Police Station,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3.Mohan Soloman
4.Chandran Solomon ...Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9633 of 2022
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents
herein and their subordinates to provide adequate police protection for doing
their business in the tenanted premises in Survey No.1382/806, measuring 20
cents in Nagercoil Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, and
forbearing the respondents herein from in any manner interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's tenanted premises in
Survey No.1382/806, measuring 20 cents in Nagercoil Village,
Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, without following due process
of law.
For Petitioner : Mr.Issac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.Suresh Kumar
For R1 and R2 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus, seeking
for a direction to the respondents herein and their subordinates to provide
adequate police protection for doing their business in the tenanted premises in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9633 of 2022
Survey No.1382/806, measuring to an extent of 20 cents in Nagercoil Village,
Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, and forbearing the respondents
herein from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the petitioner's tenanted premises in the said place, without
following due process of law.
2.The petitioner is a tenant of the respondents 3 and 4 from the year
1970 for the vacant site measuring an extent of 20 cents, comprised in S.No.
1382/806, Nagercoil Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District
and running an automobile showroom and a service centre all these years by
putting up permanent concrete construction and providing necessary
infrastructures therein. In the year 1983, the petitioner had approached the
respondents 3 and 4 offering to purchase the said tenanted premises, in view
of the permanent construction put up by them. However, the third and fourth
respondents through their power agent had filed a suit in O.S.No.666 of 1983,
on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, for recovery of
possession. In the said suit, besides filing written statement, the petitioner
had filed an application in I.A.No.1138 of 1983 and prayed to direct the
respondents 3 and 4 to sell the suit property for the price fixed by the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9633 of 2022
claiming the benefit under the City Tenants Protection Act. Thereafter, an
Advocate Commissioner was appointed to estimate the value of permanent
structure and other structures available in the suit property. The Architect had
submitted a report stating that the value of the structure was approximately
valued at Rs.1,80,000/- during the year 1983. Finally, the suit had been filed
by the respondents 3 and 4 was allowed and application filed by the petitioner
was dismissed vide common judgment and decree, dated 16.08.2004. As
against which, the petitioner had filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.69 of 2005
before the learned II Additional Sub-Judge, Nagercoil and also filed
C.M.A.No.15 of 2005 against the dismissal of I.A.No.1138 of 1983 and the
same were also dismissed on 22.10.2008, as against which, the petitioner had
filed a Second Appeal before this Court in S.A.(MD)No.632 of 2009. This
Court, initially granted stay for the operation of the judgment and decree,
dated 22.10.2008 in A.S.No.69 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Sub
Judge, Nagercoil. However, during the Pandemic period, the said Second
Appeal was dismissed for non-appearance of the learned counsel. Taking
advantage of the said situation, on 05.05.2022, the respondents 3 and 4
erected fabricated iron metal sheets in front of the petitioner's rented portion
and decided to demolish the entire property, thereby, the present Writ Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9633 of 2022
has been filed.
3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that though the petitioner's Second Appeal was dismissed for default on
21.08.2019, the petitioner is taking effective steps to restore the second appeal
to file and filed appropriate application before this Court and the same was
not yet numbered. Taking advantage of the dismissal of the Second Appeal,
without approaching the competent civil Court for execution of the decree
obtained by the private respondents in the lawful manner, the private
respondents erected a fabricated iron metal sheets and decided to demolish the
property is not a sustainable one without following due process of law. The
petitioner's possession was deprived of by the private respondents, is not a
sustainable one. Further, he would state that though the First Appeal filed by
the petitioner was dismissed, a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the
petitioner is still pending.
4.Since no adverse order is going to be passed against the private
respondents 3 and 4, notice to them is dispensed with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9633 of 2022
5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, even on a
bare perusal of the prayer itself, it is clear that there is a dispute between the
petitioner and the private respondents. Therefore, the Writ Petition is only
maintainable as against state and state instrumentality and not against the
private respondents. Hence the prayer sought for in this petition cannot be
granted.
6.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. However,
liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out the remedy before the
competent civil Court, in the manner known to law. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
7.After dismissal of this petition, the learned Senior Counsel, on
instructions, would submit that the petitioner is ready to hand over the
premises to the land lord within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order. He would further submit that this Court may
issue direction to the land lord/plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as ordered
by the trial Court and this Court may issue direction to the Law Enforcing
Agency to deliver the vehicle and other machineries, which was erected and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9633 of 2022
stationed by the petitioner, in the mean time. Since the petitioner himself has
agreed to hand over the vacant site to the private respondent/land lord, the
land lord is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as ordered by the trial Court
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order
and ensure the safety while handing over vehicles and other machineries to
the petitioner, including other properties.
8.In view of the above, the respondent police is directed to ensure the
handing over of the vehicle, machineries and other properties to the petitioner.
This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of the order.
11.05.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
lr
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9633 of 2022
Vadasery Police Station,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
lr
W.P(MD).No.9633 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9633 of 2022
11.05.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
