(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9910 OF 2010 Sham s/o. Balkrishna Selukar, Through its General Power of Attorney Holder, Nahushkumar s/o. Shamrao Selukar, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Selukar Wada, Deshpande Galli, Ambajogai, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Babu s/o. Tukaram Rathod, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Radi Lamantanda, Near Village Radi, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed. 2. Prabhu s/o. Tukaram Rathod, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Radi Lamantanda, Near Village Radi, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed. (2) 3. Venkat s/o. Tukaram Rathod, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Radi Lamantanda, Near Village Radi, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed. 4. Namdeo s/o. Mahadu Rathod, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Rajewadi Tanda, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed, Now R/o. Radi Lamantanda, Near Village Radi, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed. 5. Manik s/o. Mahadu Rathod, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Rajewadi Tanda, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed. 6. Vikram s/o. Rama Rathod, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Radi Lamantanda, Near Village Radi, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed. 7. Superintendent of Police, Beed, R/o. S.P. Office, Beed, District : Beed. .. Respondents. ....................... (3) Mr. Shrikant Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.G. Gaikwad, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 5. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no. 7. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. Though notice before admission was duly served upon respondent no.6, he has chosen not to file any appearance or argue the matter personally. As the interest of respondent no.6 is taken care of, by respondent nos.1 to 5, service of notice, upon Rule, to respondent no.6 is dispensed with. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12-8-2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambajogai, below Exhibit 171 in Special Darkhast No.22 of 2005, to the extent of observations made against the petitioner. (4) 4. Mr. Shrikant Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, makes a grievance that though the petitioner has succeeded in civil litigation, he is not in a position to enjoy the fruits thereof because of the criminal activities of respondent nos. 1 to 6. He states that on each occasion in executing the judgment and decree or then for serving notice in the matter upon respondents, Police protection is required and ultimately after the properties of respondents were attached and sold, and warrants for their arrest are issued, the same position continues. He has invited attention to the fact that on one occasion, when the petitioner along with his son, accompanied by court bailiff and Police personnel, effort was made to burn the petitioner and his son. The report lodged by Police Sub-Inspector, Ambajogai, on 22-3-2007, states that assistance of one Police Inspector, 3 Police Sub-Inspectors, 10 Lady Constables and 40 Police Constables is required for serving warrant. He has also pointed out the resolution dated 24th January 2008, issued by the Home Department of State of Maharashtra, which specifies that when Police protection is required to be extended to Government Officers in discharge of their duties, the expenditure therefor cannot be charged. 5. Mr. T.G. Gaikwad, learned Counsel appearing for (5) respondent nos.1 to 5, as also, Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.7, are supporting the impugned order. It is pointed out that unless and until the Police protection is given and petitioner accompanies bailiff, warrant cannot be served. 6. The facts show serious state of affairs. The petitioner, who has filed Darkhast in 2005, is not in a position to serve warrant of arrest though Police protection has been made available to him and he has paid on some occasions. The service is to be effected by court staff and the petitioner is required to pay for arranging protection for court staff. In this situation, the court below ought to have considered the resolution mentioned above and passed appropriate orders in the matter. 7. The competent court of law has given decree in favour of the petitioner and the said decree needs to be honoured and duly executed by the executive. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for approaching the court of law by asking him to pay more amount or then by putting his life in jeopardy by proceeding to the spot along with Police staff or bailiff. 8. The executing court is competent to pass proper orders in this respect, so that dignity of court and prestige of law (6) is maintained. If Police force or bailiff are avoiding to perform their duties, court can direct appropriate action even against them. 9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The petitioner is permitted to move fresh application before the executing court and the executing court shall pass appropriate orders on it, in accordance with law, at the earliest. Such application be filed by the petitioner by 15th March 2011 and the executing court shall decide the same within a period of two weeks thereafter. Needless to mention that the impugned order shall not come in its way while considering such request. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 11. Record and proceedings be sent back immediately. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9910