•. ,?-• HIGH COURTOF JUDjCATURg CHHATTISGARH: irai ;NCH : HON'BLE SHRf S OF g5STITiA?LESP SEi=..£.% .i 1^=?^ ^'^.s=a= £ ^ Maruthavanan, S/o. Govindan Chett)*r, aged 47 years R/o Neduvasal, Taiuka Alsngudi, Tamii Nadu. pr^g&F^fSv y^ifl^^ 0f ^^m QOD^I Tlwsfl ward Munyell, Tah. Mung^ll, Dlstt. iiiaspur fC.G.) VdSUS? scconMnCMTS i-X£nW-??-.sis?E'?L^_E—.i.?g.. of C.G. through secretary, Deptt. of i^ n. \ v,\S.j Home D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Tifc^ n^Jls.^t'r.F Rilasi'^E8? ^f^ f^ '\ 1 il^ i-i'ViE^^'E.VE , LJHS^B.r'wi^ i'i^,^^-/ 'IB.A -^ Q E'S-'in^aa.i Ei- /^ ^1- \ HS Q.f^. aflt^SpUf (^-^3.; The Station House Officer, P.S. Mungeli, Djstt. (C.G.) Mr. Praveen Das. iearned counse! for the petitionsr. ivn. vin^y iisnCs to^msc' ^ovt. AOVOCST^ TOiEns fosponocn^ 0.1 rs^HFR licfS^.Sa'&ai^. fpassed on 25"' •January, 2006 The case ofthe petitionisr, in bn'ef, is as foliows: Ths pstitlonsr hsi'ls from ths Stete of TsETiilnadu. H@ csms to S^te of Chhattisgarh about 9-10 months to his iJvelihood. He took a in Murigeii Town and a under the name and stvle 'Srtri Sai CorDoratlon' and his businsss ha-s flourlshed to the eve-sore of others. The rival businessmen connivina with respondenl Mo. 4 who is Station House Officer, Police Station, Mungeli set-up iooal seople to i'ob the goods of the pstitioner stored in the shop. The 4 responOent-t^oiice Uttieer, instead or mainiaining !av/ ana oraer ana protsctinQ tii9 psfson a.nd propKiT^ OT tus pstiuonsr aria wiLnoui tSySi fia ,IK9 ^'^ -*3S ;^-^^,"'"^s- ^.^Sr f-fiff-.s^..-^ ^h&, y'i&¥'?S^^'&y ^^ ALAs£a t-H^s s!^^"i, ^rs.f^ r;uf ^ l^,'"5!^ .Ai^ frh auinos-!iy nu^ fQrcsQ uie pQiiiiyiiSf 10 Givs^ ir^ sfivp SEIU pui $.1 fwn. uit E.H "a- ..;—s'-r;,-T-;7^^^^ ""''•'^^-^- aoor or it. Witn ths abovs allegation, the petitioner has souaht for a airectfon to the respondents not to interfere with the business of the without the due of iaw and also for the dectaration that the action of the 4th respondent is arbitrarv. iiteas and vioiative of the petitioner's right guaranteed under Article 19d^a^ nf the Constitution of india. (2) fn to the notice, Shri G. Pramod Officer, Po'lce hgs fijed an sworn to bv him on 20-01-2006. in the said affidavit, it is that on 26-11-2005, some residents of Mungeii Town reported to him that some scufne was going on oet.ivsen ths petiiioner and his smptoyees on the one hand a larcse number OT pUDiic at iarge on the other; the public was trying to take away b°eis, cnairs, mixses ana othsr which by the petitiQner in his snop that tiie petitioner and his empioyeos would flee from rne back their money. On receipt of this infomation. a Police party led by Sub inspector D. Smgh was sent to the scene of occurrence, but, they found that ths miscrsants had left the scene takinc with them whatever materials they could possibly carry. Havin.o thus stated in para 6, the deponent in para 7 has stated that there was nobodv to guara snop ot the petitioner and with a 6ona na®intention that the i-emaining matsriais in the shop shouid not be stofen or awav bv Sub Inspector D. put a iock on tne aoor of the shoo. (3) There is no nsoassity to refer to the other avsrments made in ine afflaavii. sutTice it to that the other averments woutd disclose u i.3t KU Gifrne ^^L^ .-a..n^-^.J^^^^^, ^-t- - -- i*J' rs isyrsii^ieu esgsinsL ine pQtiiionQr so far- !|A •f'S-^^^B' it'Sf^iif S_S 4=^» — in tnsi view OT ?n© ^fi,!"''l-;'-'-W*i-..-.J -'S- ^^is^^liP5^1 matter, when this writ petitlon was heard eariier, the 4th respondent who was the Court, had toid the Court that he had no objeciion 10 the key or the iock put on the door of the snop of the by Sub D. and in fact he to "andover the kev to the petitioner, but, the petjtioner did not approach him. This assertion made by the 4l" respondent wa-s squarely denied by the petitioner who was aiso before the Court. In ihat view of the m&tter, the Court had orall" airecraa tne 4"' respondent to handowr the toy to the petinonar before the t^oun. Accoraingly, today, at the time of hearing the 4'h respondsnt who fs tne Court over the key of the tock put by Sub inspector D. (4) We live in democracy and undsr rute of taw. Any public oTticsr in order to exercise any power shouid have sanction and aufhority granted by (aw and without such authority, if he exerclses any power, such would be per se and ultra vires rule of law. When !t Is the admitted that no crlme js registered the petitioner for violation of any iaw or commission of crime, i am at a ioss to understand how the 4"' respondent or any other Police C'fficer eould •nterrers •with the business of the petitioner whose status as a citisen e.f UHS couniry [s not aenieet befora ma. On the otnsr hand, the avermsnts in the of the 4th respondent wouid show that the in the iocaiity up, the stor^d by the . in "is shop and ji js to state that such of the wouid ex show that they inciuiged In crime, a coanizabie cnme. If that is so, a duty was cast o" the loca! Poiice to tato apDroDriats aotion and steps jn acoordanoe with law to proteotthe person and DroDertv •i/-^"' -•4- ia^atSt'SSSSSs^ of the petitioner. The Poiice hava faited in their duty. Th®failure of the iocai Poiice headed by the 4' respona'ent to maintain the law and order and to protect the person and property of the pettttoner, is a serious matter to be noticed by hlgher-ups in the Poiice Depanment. There is no necessity for me to dilate on thls aspect in the present Suffice it to that the 4"' respondent or anv other Polrce Officer cannot meddle or interfere with the lawful business activity of the petitioner without ths authorifr/ of 'a'w and warrant. In that vew of tha mattsr, t disposs of tha writ petition directing the 4 respondent not to interfere with the business of the petmoner jn the subject shup without authority and fair procedure. A copy of this be to the to the Government, Home Department Chhattisgarh State, Raipur and to ths Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur for their informatlon and necsssary action in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingiy. No s Sd/- Chief Justice &y^.16"