1 W.P.No.6937/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6937 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Gatne, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.N.E.Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent Nos.12,13,15 and 16. Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for Respondent Nos.10,11,14,17 and 20. Respondent Nos.2,3,6,9 and 18 served by paper publication. Respondent Nos.4,5,7,8 and 19 served. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 22.11.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner impugns the order dated 9.8.2011, passed below Exh.38 in Trust Application No.1/2011. 3. Vide order below Exh.38, the District Judge had allowed the application of the Respondents i.e. original applicants in Trust Application No.1/2011 for grant of Police aid. 4. Mr.Talekar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has passed the order granting Police aid in a casual manner without satisfying himself about the averments made in the 2 W.P.No.6937/11 application. The said order is also an exparte one. Without notice to the present petitioner, the said order of Police aid is passed. The said order does not give any reasons for the grant of Police aid and can not be sustained. The Respondents have misused the said order. 5. Mr.Gatne, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 to 9 supports the order and submits that when the Court had granted injunction then in such circumstances, it has got powers to implement the orders of injunction also. The present Respondents had placed on record the various documents showing the necessity for grant of Police aid. 6. The learned counsel further contends that the present petitioner and others were indulging in Criminal acts of taking over possession and so the grant of Police aid was necessary. The learned counsel further submits that the documents on record subsequent to the grant of Police aid would substantiate the fact that the Police aid was necessary to execute the order. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Smt.Ratnabai W/o Narayanrao Naik and another Vs. Satwarao S/o Narayanrao Naik" reported in AIR 1995 Bombay 61 and another judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Smt.Nirabai J. Patil Vs. Narayan D. Patil and others" reported in AIR 2004 Bombay 225, to substantiate 3 W.P.No.6937/11 his contention that the Court has ample power to grant Police aid in the exigency of the circumstances. The learned counsel further contends that the order of Police aid is already executed and when the order is already executed, the present Petition can not be entertained. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the application and the orders. 8. The proposition that the Court has got power to grant Police aid in case an order of injunction is passed and the exigency of the circumstances so exist, need not be dilated. The said is a trite law. 9. The order passed by the District Judge below Exh.38 reads as under : "Perused the application. Heard Advocate Smt.Paligundwar, for the applicant. The application allowed in the interest of justice to direction to the Dy.S.P. Baramati, S.P., Ahmednagar and P.C. Chembur to avail the enough lady and gents police constable or officer of Police on the requisition of the applicant on the charges as per the rule - issue yadi accordingly." 10. Perusal of the order, it is manifest that the said order does not show the circumstances taken into consideration by the learned Judge while passing the order. No reasons are given by the learned Judge while passing the said order below Exh.38 except that in the interest of justice directions are issued. The reasons are the lifeline 4 W.P.No.6937/11 of any judicial order that is passed. It depicts the application of mind of the learned Judge passing the order. In the present case, the order does not show the case considered by the learned Judge while passing the order. Even in the judgment in a case of "Smt.Ratnabai W/o Narayanrao Naik and another Vs. Satwarao S/o Narayanrao Naik" referred supra, relied by the learned counsel for the Respondents. It is observed : "8. It is no doubt that the Police help is an extraordinary mode or procedure to implement the execution of the decree or orders. In other words, Police help is to be regarded as an extreme step and as such it should not be recommended unless the Court is fully convinced of the existence of a grave emergency. Therefore, a decree-holder praying for police help has to state whether such help is required either;" 10. As observed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Smt.Ratnabai W/o Narayanrao Naik and another Vs. Satwarao S/o Narayanrao Naik", the grant of Police aid is an extreme mode or procedure to implement the execution of the decree and is to be regarded as an extreme step and as such it should not be recommended unless the Court is fully convinced of the existence of a grave emergency. The order passed below Exh. 38 does not show that all these factors have been considered while passing the impugned order. So also no reasons are given by the 5 W.P.No.6937/11 learned Judge as to why the notice to the other party was not necessary before passing the said order. 11. In view of the above facts, the order impugned can not be sustained. Even if it is assumed as is contended by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the said order is executed and does not survive, the same would not be an impediment as in certain circumstances the legality of the order can be determined. 12. In light of the above, the impugned order passed below Exh. 38 is quashed and set aside. 13. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A). However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.22.11.2011. asp/office/wp6937.11 6 W.P.No.6937/11