PRASANNA KUMAR ROY KARMAKAR versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 912 · Decided: 26-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRASANNA KUMAR ROY KARMAKAR 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
MARCH 26, 1996 
B 
[N.P. SINGH AND SUHAS C. SEN, .TJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: Anicle 226. 
High Coun-Wiit Jurisdiction-Private dispute between landlord and 
C tenant-Landlord initiating proceedings under section 144 of the Oiminal 
Procedure Code--Invoking wiit jwisdiction thereafte,......[)isposal of Wlit 011 the 
basis of police report-No proper hea1ing given to tenant--Copy of police 
repo1t also not given to tenant-Direction by High Court-Dislodging of tenant 
from disputed premises-Held w1it jwisdiction was not properly exercised by 
High Cowt. 
D 
E 
Appellate Coun--Orde1' passed by-Enforcement of 
Maxim· ''.Acl!Js 01iiae Neminem Gravabit"--Meaning and applicability 
of 
In a private dispute between a. landlord and tenant the former 
initiated proceedings in the Court of Executive Magistrate under Section 
144 of the Code. of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thereafter the landlord 
move.d the High ~ourt under Article 226 which passed an interim order, 
without notice to the appellant-tenant, directing the police to file its report. 
F The landlord's petition was finally disposed on 30th August, 1993 on the 
basis of the police report. On the basis of this order, the landlord with the 
help of police authorities . evicted the tenant from his flat and got back 
possession of tenanted premises without having recourse to the usual 
landlord tenant proceedings before appropriate forum in accordance with 
G law. 
The Appellate Court allowed the tenant's appeal and by its order 
dated October 14, 1993 set aside the order of writ Court. However, even on 
the basis of appellate Court's order the appellant-tenant was not able to 
get back the possession. By its order dated 14th January, 1994 the Appel-
H late Court rejected the application filed by tenant for relief on the ground 
912 
\./ 
• 
·i 
P .K.R. KARMAKAR v. STA TE 
913 
·' 
that after disposal of appeal it became ftmctus officio. The tenant preferred A 
appeals before this Court. 
Disposing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The \V'"it Court had exceeded its jurisidction in intervening 
in a private dispute. ·The scope of writ jurisdiction was lost sight of by it B . 
a'!d an .extraordinary situation was brought about by passing a~ improper 
and unjust order. It wa.s m?st unfortunate that t.he Court intervened in a. 
proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was 
. 
. 
.· . 
; . 
- -
ad\lally being heard .and a drastic order of this nature was passed by the 
Court in such a manner without issuing a Rule Nisi and without any proper 
hearing. A procedure un~o~ to law was ~dopted for disposing of a C 
landlord-tenant dispute. [916-E; 914-H; 915-B-C] 
• 
-
i • ' 
. 
. 
• 
. 
t 
. 
. 
. 
Mo/Jan Pandey & Anr. v. Usha Rani Rajgaria & Ors., AIR (1993) SC 
1225, cited, 
' . 
. 
.. 
:Z. As a result of the order passed by Writ Court the appellant liad · D 
been dispossessed by the police. Since by ~n erroneous order the appellant 
had been evicted from the possession of the disputed p'remises," it was the 
duty· of tlie lippeal court, after reversing the order of the Trial ·court, to 
restore the appellant back info possession; Otherwise, ·even after' succeed-
ing in the .appeal, the appellant will r~main·without remedy and out· of E . 
possession as . a result of the order passed by the Court: Actus cliiiai 
neminem Gravabit ·An act of the c·ourt shall prejudice.no man, Therefore, 
the order passed by the appeal court on 14th January, 1994 is set.aside and 
the case is remanded back to appeal court which shall'conduct an enquiry 
·as lo whether the appellant \\'as acttially evicted .from possession and 'if so, 
restore him back into the possession of the disputed premises. 
· 
F . 
·•·• 
[915-H; 916'E-H; 917-B-C] 
• 
< 
-
• 
• 
._ 
-~ 
_. 
•, 
• 
' 
~: 
,_ 
'1-' 
CIVIL APPELLATE .JU.RISDICTION ·: Civil Appeal Nos .. 5099-' 
sfoo ~r 1996. 
·· · · · 
· 
" 
' 
· 
· ·' 
' · ·· ·· • 
• · 
" 
,. 
.~ .. 
· Frain the Juc!gment and Order tlated 14.10.93 of the Ca!Cutta High G. · 
~,. 
Cou•t in Appeal No. Nil of 1993. 
Ashok Sen and Bijan· Kumar Ghosh for the Appellant. 
· ; 
t· 
.. 
~!. 
·• 'n-
.-1 
1 
r,,~ , _ 
_, 
,< 
A.K. Ganguli, Somnathmukherjee; Avijit Bhattacharaya, ·Ms, Sarla. 
Chandra,.(NP) for the Respondent Nos. 1-~.' 
,• 
" 
. , ,,,. 
H , 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SEN, J. Special leave granted. 
This is an extra

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.