High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2014-07-04Writ petition disposed of without granting the ...

A. V. Anwar v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Panniyankara Police Station, Kozhikode City; Circle Inspector of Police, Kasaba, Kozhikode City; Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), Kozhikode City; Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City; Public Playground Action Committee, Payyanakkal; and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 17038 of 2014 (D)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Manjula Chellur, C.J.
A.M. Shaffique, J.
Judgment Date: 2014-07-04
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of. The court observes that this is not a matter for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226; the petitioner’s right to civil remedies (e.g., permanent injunction) may be pursued in a civil court. Police protection will only be provided if there is a threat to law and order or potential crime; in the absence of such a scenario, the police should not intervene in civil rights disputes. The earlier observations from Ext.P1 regarding not keeping land idle and permitting building permit procedures are noted, but the petition does not warrant granting the relief sought.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of without granting the requested police protection; no extraordinary relief under Article 226; civil remedies advised; police intervention only in case of law and order violations or imminent crime.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A. V. Anwar

Respondents

Sub-Inspector of Police, Panniyankara Police Station, Kozhikode City
Circle Inspector of Police, Office of the Circle Inspector of Police, Kasaba, Kozhikode City
Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), Kozhikode City
Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City, Mananchira
Public Playground Action Committee, Payyanakkal (represented by its Chairman A. Ismail)
A. Ismail
C. Milad Sherif
T. T. Asis
N. Jamshi
Nazeer Ahammed C.K.
Jahfar alias Jafer
Shamsudeen
N.V. Shafi
MujeeB
Abdulla Koya
N.V. Ismail
Ameer (SDPI Member)
Palat Premarajan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. P. Mohammed NiAs

Counsels for Respondents

• State Attorney, Sri P. Vijayaraghavan

Case Synopsis & Summary

A.V. Anwar filed WP(C) No. 17038 of 2014 seeking police protection to enable construction of a residential building on his land in Kozhikode, backed by Ext.P2 building permit. The challenge arises from opposition by the fifth respondent Public Playground Action Committee and its supporters, who seek to convert the petitioner’s land into a playground, leading to threats to construction workers. The record recalls Ext.P1, a judgment in W.P.(C) No. 9204 of 2009, which directed adherence to due procedure for building permits and consideration of land use, and the court’s observations that the petitioner's land should not lie idle and that the second respondent should consider permit applications. The petitioner argues that obstructing construction infringes his right to enjoy his property, and, invoking Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. CI of Police (Full Bench, Kerala), seeks mandamus and police protection against private respondents. The respondents contend for restraint on extraordinary relief; a civil remedy (injunction) would suffice. The court reviews the record, notes that Ext.P1’s directions were not to be relegated, but concludes this petition is not a proper vehicle for Article 226 relief. It holds that police intervention is warranted only to prevent crime or maintain order, not to adjudicate civil rights in a writ petition. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 226

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel contends for police protection to safeguard construction of a residential building under Ext.P2 permit, relying on the Full Bench Essar Telecom judgment to justify intervention to protect civil rights pending adjudication. It is argued that private respondents threaten construction work and obstruct the petitioner’s right to possess and develop the property; the land should not remain in a “freeze” of uncertainty about playground use. The remedy sought includes mandamus and police protection to proceed with construction, along with costs and other proper reliefs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (through the State) oppose invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 for police protection, contending that civil relief (e.g., injunction) is the proper remedy and that the court should refrain from extraordinary interference. They emphasize that any action must adhere to due process and public order considerations; police intervention should be limited to preventing crime or maintaining law and order, not to adjudicate civil rights in a writ petition.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I. Of Police	2010 (2) KLT 762	Mentioned Only	Cited as the Full Bench authority relevant to police protection/intervention in civil rights; not directly applied to grant the relief sought but referenced in the petition’s arguments.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against A. V. Anwar v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Panniyankara Police Station, Kozhikode City; Circle Inspector of Police, Kasaba, Kozhikode City; Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), Kozhikode City; Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City; Public Playground Action Committee, Payyanakkal; and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2014/13TH ASHADHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 17038 of 2014 (D) ---------------------------- ## PETITIONER : - --------------- A.V.ANWAR, AGED 64 YEARS S/O.U.MOHAMMED KOYA, RESIDING AT 'SANKALP', 19/1517 A CHALAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS : - ------------------- 1. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PANNIYANKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE CITY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 003. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASABA KOZHIKODE CITY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 001. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (SOUTH) KOZHIKODE CITY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 001. 4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE CITY MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, 673 001. 5. PUBLIC PLAYGROUND ACTION COMMITTEE, PAYYANAKKAL (REG.NO.KKD/CA/448/2014) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN A.ISMAIL, S/O.ALIKUNHI, AGED 68 YEARS VADAKAEKALATHIL HOUSE, PAYYANAKKAL, P.O.KALLAYI KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 003. 6. A.ISMAIL, AGED 68 YEARS S/O.ALIKUNHI, VADAKAEKALATHIL HOUSE, PAYYANAKKAL P.O. KALLAYI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 003. 7. C.MILAD SHERIF, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.KOYAMON, MAPPILA VALAPPIL, PAYYANAKKAL P.O. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 003. 8. T.T.ASIS, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.HUSSAIN, VALIYAPADAM PARAMBU, PAYYANAKKAL P.O. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 003. WP(C).No. 17038 of 2014 (D) 9. N.JAMSHI, AGED 38 YEARS PANDARATH VALAPU, PAYYANAKKAL P.O., KALLAI KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 003. 10. NAZEER AHAMMED C.K., AGED 33 YEARS - S/O.ABDULLA KOYA, PALLIPURAYI PARAMBU, CHAKKAKADAV - P.O., KALLAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 003. 11. JAHFAR ALIAS JAFER, AGED 36 YEARS PANDARATH VALAPU, PAYYANAKKAL P.O., KALLAI KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 003. 12. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.P.V.AVARAN, PADARATHU VALAPU, PAYYANAKKAL P.O. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 003. 13. N.V.SHAFI, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.ALI, MILLATH COLONY P.O., KALLAI KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 003. 14. MUJEEB, AGED 45 YEARS - S/O.ABUBACKER, VALIYAPADAM PARAMBU, PAYYANAKKAL P.O. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 003. 15. ABDULLA KOYA, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.MOIDUNNI, KAYATTI VALAPPU, PAYYANAKKAL P.O. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 003. 16. N.V.ISMAIL, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN, MAPPILA VALAPIL, PAYYANAKKAL P.O. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 003. 17. AMEER (SDPI MEMBER), AGED 45 YEARS PANDARATHU VALAPPU, PAYYANAKKAL P.O., KALLAI KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 003. 18. PALAT PREMARAJAN,, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN, ILLATH PARAMBU, AYYANGAR ROAD P.O. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 003. R1 TO R4 BY STATE ATTORNEY, SRI. P. VIJAYARAGHAVAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17038 of 2014 (D) --------------------------------- ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : ------------------------------ EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/4/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.9204/2009. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 21/2/2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CORPORATION OF CALICUT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/05/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH COPIES TO RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------ NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE ## **Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 17038 OF 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4[th] day of July, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Manjula Chellur, C.J.** Heard learned counsel for petitioner. We have gone through the records. When an issue arose with regard to the building permit as some of the third parties wanted property of the petitioner to be made as playground by Corporation concerned, the litigation ended with Ext.P1 judgment in W.P. (C) No.9204 of 2009. Thereafter, a permit was obtained as per Ext.P2. 2. According to petitioner, in spite of such direction given by this Court while disposing the writ petition that grant of permission should be in accordance with the procedure, party respondents are threatening the construction workers who are attending to the construction work of petitioner in the property in question. According to petitioner, he is putting up a residential house in the property mentioned above. As many as 18 private parties are made as party respondents in this Writ Petition, who seems to be active members of 5[th] WP(C) No. 17038 of 2014 -:2:- respondent Committee. According to petitioner's counsel, in the light of principles laid down in the Full Bench judgment of this Court pertaining to **Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I. Of Police** [2010 (2) KLT 762], he seeks intervention of this Court to grant police protection by granting the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 police authorities to give adequate, necessary and meaningful police protection to the petitioner, the workers employed by him for the purpose of constructing a residential building in accordance with Ext.P2 building permit and the construction work in his property, without any hindrance or interference from private respondents Nos.5 to 18 and their men. ii. Allow the costs of this writ petition to the petitioner; and iii. Grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice.” 3. So far as Ext.P1, the entire dispute seems to be with regard to the representation made by 5[th] respondent Committee before Town Planning Committee which had not taken into consideration the request of 5[th] respondent. However, WP(C) No. 17038 of 2014 -:3:- learned Judge while disposing of the writ petition made certain observations to the effect that the decision taken as per Ext.P11 has to be set aside as there was no justification. Learned Judge also opined that the land of the petitioner cannot be kept unused in a freeze condition with uncertainty whether a proposal for play ground should be considered or not. Therefore, 2[nd] respondent was directed to consider applications for building permit. Except this, none of the civil rights of the petitioner were the subject matter of Ext.P1. 4. According to petitioner, a fresh cause of action arose for him to approach this Court as there is obstruction to the construction work carried on by him through the party respondents who are the active supporters of 5[th] respondent Committee. If petitioner has obtained a proper and necessary permit and if he is entitled to put up construction, it is also part of his right to enjoy the possession of the property in the manner he likes. This right of the petitioner cannot be obstructed or denied. If such obstruction or denial is raised, there is a way how he has to get the right settled. WP(C) No. 17038 of 2014 -:4:- 5. The entire dispute pertains to one piece of property belonging to petitioner which 5[th] respondent wants to use as a playground. Admittedly as on today, there is no authority for the 5[th] respondent to make use of the same as playground. If party respondents are obstructing the construction, they are interfering with the right of enjoyment of property by the petitioner. Petitioner can seek an injunction order, not only against 5[th] respondent and other party respondents, but also against anyone who claims under 5[th] respondent and other respondents. In the light of such observation, we are of the opinion, this is not a matter where extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court has to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution and the petitioner's right has to be protected in a civil court probably by filing a suit for permanent injunction. 6. However, we make it clear that if at all the attempt of party respondents or anyone claiming under them leads to any law and order problem or leads to commission of a crime or attempt to commit crime, then alone respondent Police shall step WP(C) No. 17038 of 2014 -:5:- in. Otherwise, they are not entitled to intervene in the civil rights of the parties. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. **Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.** **A.M. Shaffique, Judge.** ttb/05/07