1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tattvam K. Patel for the applicants and learned APP Mr. K. P. Raval for the respondent-State.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Tattvam K. Patel for the applicants took me to the initial order, page-21, passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara on 13/02/2009 below Exh.-17 directing the concerned Police Officer of Police Station to grant police protection to the applicants herein who were original plaintiffs for enjoying their legal rights upon the land bearing survey no.511/1 of the Eastern side admeasuring 0-54-12 HRA of village Sherkhi. It was further directed that the police protection shall be at the cost of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the said order was carried before this Court in Special Civil Application No.1421 of 2009, page-31 and vide order dated 18/02/2009 this Court dismissed said petition with the clarification that the police protection granted by the trial court shall be at the cost of the original plaintiffs (petitioners herein). It is further submitted that pursuant to said order when the petitioners filed application before respondent No.1, Commissioner of Police on December, 2010 attaching the relevant copies of the orders, the respondent no.1 Commissioner of Police, City of Vadodara vide administrative order dated 30/12/2010 disallowed the request made by the petitioners for police protection only quoting the order dated 12/05/2009 passed in Special Civil Application No.4247 of 2009. Learned advocate Mr. Patel for the applicants drew my attention to the order dated 12/05/2009 passed in Special Civil Application No.4247 of 2009 whereby the status quo qua the land was ordered to be maintained, however, thereafter vide order dated 02/03/2010 passed in the said application, this Court granted ad interim relief in terms of para-10(B) of the petition in favour of the petitioners herein to the extent it permits the joint possession of the petitioners of the property in question. It is further submitted that despite the fact that all these orders were brought to the notice of the concerned police officer vide order dated 30/12/2010 the request for police protection was disallowed. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submitted that as a matter of fact this amounts to flouting the order of this Court, but at this stage, in this proceeding, he does not agitate this aspect of the matter but he submitted that initial order passed by the trial court on 13/01/2009 which came to be confirmed by this court by order dated 18/02/2009 shall be acted upon by the respondent no.1.
3. Heard learned APP Mr. Raval for the respondent-State.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides so also considering the orders referred to by learned advocate Mr. Patel for the applicants during the course of his submissions and annexed with this petition, this Court is of the clear opinion that while passing the order dated 30/12/2010 the respondent no.1 appears to have clearly lost sight of the correct situation emerge from these orders. When such is the situation, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein the respondent no.1 is required to be directed to comply with the orders passed by the trial court as well as by this Court and more particularly the order dated 18/02/2009 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.1421 of 2009.
5. For the foregoing reasons the order dated 30/12/2010 passed by the respondent no.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to comply with the order dated 13/02/2009 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh.-17 in Regular Civil Suit No.81 of 2009 so also the order dated 18/02/2009 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.1421 of 2009 upholding the said order passed by the trial court, clarifying that the police protection shall be at the cost of the petitioners. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) (ila) Top