1. Petitioner has approached this Court inter alia seeking for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to permit him to open the premises of the building covered by Ext.P1. The facts involved in this case is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the third respondent for selling his property. The said agreement has been cancelled because the third respondent could not raise money to purchase the building. However, the third respondent got involved in financial irregularities which resulted in police case being registered against the third respondent and they have closed the building in question and took away the keys. The third respondent was enlarged on bail and as per arrangements with the petitioner the previous agreement for sale was W.P.(C)No.4975 of 2014 -:2:-
cancelled. As a result, petitioner alone has right in the property and he intends to sell the same to prospective purchasers because he wants to pay back the huge loan amount taken from financial institutions. But he could not show the building to anybody as the police has locked up the building and took away the keys.
2. A statement is filed by the second respondent stating that the third respondent was involved in several crimes and it is on account of that, necessary investigation has been done in the matter. However, it is stated that the police has not illegally locked up the building and further it is stated that, the allegation of the petitioner that the police have locked up the building, is not correct.
3. According to the petitioner, he is not intending to retain possession of the building, but he wants to sell it to prospective purchasers and what he wants is that the police should not lock W.P.(C)No.4975 of 2014 -:3:-
the building. The said submission is supported by the third respondent also. Learned counsel for the third respondent submits that, though the earlier agreement was cancelled and the petitioner has promised to refund the amount taken as advance from the third respondent, so far it has not been returned.
4. Such issues are matters that has to be settled between the parties and if they have any dispute regarding the said arrangement, they have to take up the same before the civil court.
5. As far as the present case is concerned, since it is stated that the police have not locked up the building, I do not think that the petitioner's apprehension is justified.
Hence, taking on record the statement of the second respondent, this writ petition is closed.
sl. A.M.Shaffique, Judge.