H.V. Low and Co., Ltd. vs Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy and Others

Adami, J.—This Court is asked in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to set aside an order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad rejecting the application of the petitioners that he should draw up proceedings either u/s 144 or Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the opposite party and to direct the said Deputy Commissioner to take action under one or other of those sections. (After stating facts his Lordship continued.) Mr. Hasan Imam has argued that Messrs. H.V. Low and Co., Ltd., were in admitted possession up to February 4 and that they still have title to possession, while the disloyalty of their manager and servants cannot deprive them of possession. He contends that even if they were dispossessed on February 4th, they were wrongfully dispossessed and so proceedings u/s 145 should have been taken.

Even if they were wrongfully dispossessed, it is clear that they were not forcibly dispossessed and the first proviso to Sub-section 4 of Section 145 requires that the dispossession should be forcible and wrongful. It is equally clear that Mr. Adamson and the staff are now in actual possession on behalf of the Maharaj whether rightly or wrongly.

The question as to the construction of the agreement between the parties, whether it amounted to a lease or merely to a Managing Agency, whether the Maharaja was justified in dismissing the Managing Agents, whether longer notice was required and whether the present petitioners are entitled to possession are questions which are proper for a civil Court to decide, and which probably will be decided in the civil suit now pending between the parties; they are not questions which could be decided in proceedings u/s 144 Criminal P.C., and yet no orders u/s 144 could be passed unless a decision had been come to by a competent Court on several of these points.

The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner was perfectly correct in refusing to attempt to decide the question of title and fraud and wrongful dismissal in proceedings u/s 145 or Section 144 or to usurp the power of the civil Court in the direction of ejecting the party now in actual physical possession of the colliery.

Furthermore from the petition it is clear that a breach of the peace is likely only if the petitioners seek to enter the colliery and to enforce their claim. The counter-affidavits sworn by Messrs. Lyall and Adamson as well as the explanation submitted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner show that, beyond the fact that Military Police were sent to a Police station near the colliery, there was no show of force which would lead the petitioners to apprehend any violence, and it is explained by the Additional Deputy Commissioner that the Military Police were sent to the police station only in case the petitioners might resort to violence. It was in fact unlikely that a firm like that of Messrs. H.V. Low and Co., would countenance the use of force.

The Additional Deputy Commissioner was satisfied that there was not a likelihood of the breach of the peace; this Court directs him to be satisfied as to such likelihood, and unless he is satisfied on this point he cannot proceed under either Section 145 or Section 144.

The remedy of the petitioners lies in the civil Court. The Additional Deputy Commissioner rightly refused to take action under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The application is rejected.

Bucknill, J.

I agree.