- (1.) MR. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner got possession of the property in question in execution of the decree up to High Court and the judgement debtor has not moved the Supreme Court and therefore the decree has become final. He further submitted that when the petitioner wanted to make a boundary wall for safety of its boy/girl students, some anti social elements are creating trouble and therefore the local authorities be directed to see that no interference/obstruction is made by any person. He also submitted that petitioner is ready to deposit cost, if any, for this purpose. He submitted that a representation was made in this regard before the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi also.
(2.) MR. Saurav Arun, learned State counsel, submitted that in absence of instruction, he is not in a position to accept or controvert the statements made in the writ petition. However, he submitted that the matter can be looked into. In the circumstances, petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi ( respondent no. 2) and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi ( respondent no. 4). If they are satisfied that no body can obstruct/interfere with the possession of the petitioner and construction of boundary wall etc. by it, they will do the needful to protect the petitioner from such obstruction/interference, if any. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.;