- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 2.3.2012 passed by the Sub - divisional Magistrate, Saraikella in Misc. Case No.4 of 2012 whereby and whereunder a proceeding initiated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It does appear that the opposite party no.2 had entered into a contract with M/s. I.B.P company for running a petrol pump as retail outlet. Subsequently, the land attached to the said outlet was leased out to the opposite party no.2 for a period of 40 years giving right to the opposite party no. 2 to construct five shops and one service center at his own cost within the boundaries of said outlet. Later on, on account of merger of M/s. I.B.P company with Indian Oil corporation all the assets and liabilities were taken over by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited. At the time of taking over petrol pump was being run by one Bhagwan Singh, a nominee of opposite party no.2. After expiry of the agreement, I. O. C was looking out to appoint a regular dealer. Meanwhile, a case was filed under the provision of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act for evicting of the said Bhagwan Singh from the premises of retail outlet. On 8.9.2011 an order was passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5(1) of the said Act for eviction of the said premises. That order was challenged before the appellate court and the appellate court affirmed the order passed by the Estate Officer. Being aggrieved with that order, opposite party no.2 preferred a writ application before this Court, vide W.P.(C) No.5844 of 2011. In that application, an interlocutory application was filed wherein prayer was made to restrain the petitioners from taking over the possession of the retail outlet and the said six shops.
(3.) IN that case, a counter affidavit was filed stating therein that possession has already been taken of those shops and retail outlet. That claim was laid on the basis of documents showing taking over possession by the petitioners. This Court taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case vide its order dated 3.2.2012 declined to pass any order in favour of the writ petitioners as the property in question had been allotted to 3rd party. However, before that, an application was filed by the opposite party no.2 (writ petitioner) before the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Saraikella for initiation of a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Magistrate called for a police report. Pursuant to that, police submitted its report stating therein that pursuant to order of eviction these petitioners have already taken possession of some parts of the land which was under lease but still the possession of six shops has not been taken over by the petitioners, though the petitioners have been trying hard to take possession over the said shops and on account of that there has been apprehension of breach of peace.;