Md. Mostafa Md. Mostafa Mondal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that despite a decree for declaration of his title to a property and permanent injunction restraining the

private respondents from disturbing his possession, the police authorities have not acted on a complaint lodged by him. In support of his contention, the

writ petitioner relies upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. R. Murlidharan & Ors. Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha

Padar & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501. In the said decision, the writ petitioner relies particularly on paragraph 19 of the judgment which is set

out hereinbelow:

“A writ for “police protection†so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a

decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or,

at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and when too in furtherance of the decree or order.â€​

 He says that the said decision supports his contentions that without putting decree into execution he is entitled to police protection per se based on

the decree. The basic difference in the facts of that case with the instant case is that the Supreme Court was considering an order passed in a writ

petition alleging violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case the prayers in the petition only indicate possible violation of

Articles 19(i)(g) and 300A.

I am clearly of the view that the said decision cannot assist the petitioner’s contention that he is entitled to police protection even after a decree

has been passed by a civil court and without putting the decree into execution. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon an unreported

decision of this Court dated 5th June, 2014, in W. P. 9517 (W) of 2014. I am in very respectful disagreement with the views of the said coordinate

bench on the interpretation of the P.R.Murlidharan’s case (supra).

The petitioner also relies upon an unreported decision of this Court dated 14th May 2016 in W. P. 8201 (W) of 2015, Gautam Ghosh and Ors. Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors. The facts of the said case are different. It was found therein that despite a decree and after a civil court was

approached in execution for police protection, the writ petitioner therein was remediless. It is in those circumstances, police protection was allowed.

The petitioner next relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Hon’ble Court dated 30th October, 2014 in MAT 1714 of 2014 (Shib Kumar

Sarkar Vs. Netai Kumar Sarkar) that upheld the decision of the Single Judge directing police protection. The police were ordered to enforce to

temporary injunction passed by a Civil Court in that case. The petitioner herein has a decree which he could put to execution. There is however

another unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 2nd September, 2014 in MAT No.1436 of 2014 Kartik Rishi (Mondal) Vs. Provat

Kumar Chattoraj & Ors.. It was held therein as follows:-

“The civil court passed the restraining order only against the second defendant in the suit. Hence the first three respondents could not get any relief

from the writ court against all the defendants in the suit. In any case, the writ court could not be approached for execution of the order of the civil

court with police help. This is the law stated by the Division Bench in the decision dated September 2, 2014. The first three respondents’ remedy,

if any, was before the civil court.â€​

I find the aforesaid view more apposite in the facts of the case. I am of the view that once a person obtains a decree for declaration of his title

alongwith a permanent injunction, his remedy for benefits of such a decree, if interfered with, lies in seeking execution of the decree and not

approaching the Police Authorities directly. This is so as the Civil Court's decree is best interpreted by the Civil Court itself. A Writ Court is not an

executing Court for Civil decrees.

What is vital to the issue herein is that the Civil Court has not even been approached in the instant case. Such remedy before the 1st Civil Judge

(Junior Division) at Rampurhat in Birbhum District, would be more convenient to the petitioner than to come all the way to Calcutta to this

Hon’ble Court. According to me, it is only upon a direction in execution of such decree that the police authorities may take steps. It is, however,

clarified that in the event of a physical threat to the petitioner or his family, notwithstanding the decree in relation to his property, he would be entitled

to protection to the extent of threat to himself and his family members’ under Article 21 of the Constitution, in a writ petition. In those

circumstances, W. P. 4128 (W) of 2018 is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.