HOWRAH MILLS CO LTD Vs. MD SHAMIM
LAWS(SC)-2006-5-46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on May 12,2006

HOWRAH MILLS CO. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
MD. SHAMIM Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

NOOR SABAH ANSARI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2008-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
K N RAJAN ALIAS RAJENDRAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2006-9-266] [REFERRED TO]
N JOTHI VS. HOME SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2006-10-202] [REFERRED TO]
G MEENA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
ARULRAJA ALIAS S A RAJA VS. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL [LAWS(MAD)-2007-9-424] [REFERRED TO]
GAIL INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-203] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHAVENDRA WARE HOUSING H AND T CONTRACTOR KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI VS. STATE OF A P REP BY SUOERINTENDENT OF POLICE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT KAKINADA [LAWS(APH)-2011-12-92] [REFERRED TO]
VARUN CAR AGENCY LTD VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2010-5-86] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA PAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD VS. S I OF POLICE [LAWS(KER)-2010-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
PASTOR JOHN PONNAIAH THE ELECTED SECRETARY MADRAS PENTECOSTAL ASSEMBLY PALLAVARAM VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-163] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWAKARMA THIRUMANA MAALIGAI DHARMASTHAPANAM VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VELLORE DISTRICT VELLORE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-605] [REFFERED TO]
S GIRINIVASA PRASAD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
P. MARKKANNATHAS VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-452] [REFERRED TO]
VARUN MANIAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-5-77] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellants approached the High Court of Calcutta praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State and its police authorities to give the appellants the necessary protection in respect of the property of the first appellant, the Howrah Mills Co. Ltd. The appellants pointed out that the company was before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short "the BIFR") for its reconstruction and a proposal to sell away a portion of its land as a means to revive the industry, has been approved by the BIFR, especially since the State of West Bengal had also agreed before it to such a course. The company owned a vast extent of land out of which a portion was to be sold and the process for sale is at an advanced stage. Meanwhile, attempts were being made to interfere with the possession of the appellants over the property and in spite of requests in that behalf, the police authorities were not rendering the necessary help to the appellants. The company employed about six thousand workers and a revival of the company, which was still working, would be for the benefit of such a work force also and it was all the more reason for the respondents to give the necessary protection to the appellants to protect the property from unauthorized trespassers. There was also a prayer for affording protection for the purpose of repairing the compound wall of the property and for putting up a separate boundary wall protecting the portion to be alienated. The appellants offered that they would meet the expenses for the affording of such protection.
(3.)While entertaining the writ petition, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta granted an interim order of protection. The learned Judge found that there was prima facie failure on the part of the police to perform their duty and in the circumstances it was just and proper to issue a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Howrah to ensure that the officer in charge of the Shibpur Police Station strictly complied with the direction given to him to see to it personally that no one, in any manner, stepped into the property in question, without specific permission being granted by the appellants. The writ petition was directed to be listed for final hearing.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.