High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with directions and n...

M/S Aryanet Trust v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.1821 OF 2021(C)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date
2021-02-25
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed of with directions: (i) The 3rd respondent shall ensure there is no threat to law and order in the locality in connection with any loading/unloading by the 5th respondent or his headload workers; (ii) If there is any threat to life, the petitioner may move the 3rd respondent for police protection; (iii) The 3rd respondent shall take necessary action on such requests without delay, consistent with the statutory provisions and the jurisprudence cited; No order as to costs.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions and no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/S Aryanet Trust (Petitioner)

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala (Home Secretary)
  • The District Police Chief, Palakkad
  • The Station House Officer, Hemambikanagar Police Station, Palakkad
  • Palakkad District Committee Office of Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board
  • Dominic @ Sabu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri Rajesh Sivaraman Kutty
  • • Sri Arul Muralidharan
  • • Smt. Jaeona James

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Sunil Nath N.B. (G.P.)
  • • Sri Thomas Abraham
  • • Sri P. Ramakrishnan
  • • Smt. Preethi Ramakrishnan
  • • Sri T.C. Krishna
  • • Sri C. Anil Kumar
  • • Sri Pratap Abraham Varghese
  • • Smt. Asha K. Shenoy

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, M/S Aryanet Trust, which runs Nalanda Arts and Science College at Velikkadu, Mundur, Palakkad, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the State of Kerala, the District Police Chief, and the local police to provide adequate police protection for the staff while unloading materials into the college campus and to prevent obstruction by Dominic alias Sabu (5th respondent) and his men. The court noted on admission that the 5th respondent’s group claims authority over loading/unloading rights, though the area is not a scheme-covered area, and held that the 5th respondent and headload workers cannot claim such work as a matter of right within the petitioner’s campus. Interim orders were issued directing respondents 2 and 3 to ensure staff are not harassed or threatened during unloading. The judgment discusses the Kerala Police Act, 2011, particularly Sections 3 and 4, and quotes jurisprudence on police duties: maintaining peace and order and protecting life, liberty and dignity, as well as the broader aim of police investigation to uncover truth. Citing Manohar Lal Sharma and Ankush Maruti Shinde, the court reinforces police responsibility to safeguard citizens. The petition is disposed of with directions to the 3rd respondent to act promptly upon requests for protection, and with no order as to costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaKerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 3Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 4 (clauses (a) to (s))

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • The Due Process of Law (Lord Denning) – description of police role and proper conduct in safeguarding freedoms.
  • Police duty to protect life, liberty and property (Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 532).
  • Reiteration of the above principle in Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 15 SCC 470).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner seeks a mandamus under Article 226 directing the State and local police to provide continuous police protection for college staff while unloading materials and to prevent obstruction by the 5th respondent and his men. It asserts the activity is integral to the institution’s functioning and safety of staff; argues that the 5th respondent’s forces threaten staff and disrupt operations; relies on police duties under the Kerala Police Act to secure peace, safety, and protection of rights within the campus; asks for police protection to be provided promptly if any threat arises.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents oppose right of the 5th respondent and headload workers to claim unloading work within the campus as a matter of right, noting the area is not a scheme-covered zone. They submit that the police must maintain law and order, and that there is no explicit right for coercive loading/unloading by external parties in this campus; they rely on Section 3 and 4 of the Kerala Police Act and on the findings that the campus area is not a scheme-covered area. They emphasize the need for orderly conduct and proper legal processes rather than judicial intervention that would amount to enforceable rights for third parties.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary(2014) 2 SCC 532PositiveCited to establish police responsibility to protect life, liberty and property and to emphasize the role of police in safeguarding fundamental rights.
Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra(2019) 15 SCC 470PositiveCited to reiterate the principle of police protection and investigation as part of safeguarding citizens’ rights.

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 M/S Aryanet Trust v. State of Kerala 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 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** # **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.1821 OF 2021(C)** ## **PETITIONER :** **M/S.ARYANET TRUST REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, AIT CAMPUS, VELIKKADU, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD, PIN-678592.** **BY ADVS. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SRI.ARUL MURALIDHARAN SMT.JAEONA JAMES** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REP. BY HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,**| ||**PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,**| ||**PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.**| |**3**|**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| ||**HEMAMBIKANAGAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD**| ||**DISTRICT, PIN-678010.**| |**4**|**PALAKKAD DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE OF KERALA**| ||**HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,**| ||**REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, METTUPALAYAM STREET,**| ||**PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.**| -2- WP(C).No.1821 OF 2021(C) **5 DOMINIC @ SABU, AGED 55 YEARS FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, KULAKKAT VAYALIL HOUSE, VADAKKANTE KADU, VELIKKAD POST, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678592.** **R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SUNIL NATH N.BR4 BY ADV. SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R5 BY ADV. SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.KRISHNA R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE R5 BY ADV. SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- WP(C).No.1821 OF 2021(C) ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner Trust, which is conducting an educational institution, namely, 'Nalanda Arts and Science College', Velikkadu, Mundur, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life of the staff of the petitioner in unloading materials from vehicles brought to the said College from any threat of the 5[th] respondent and his men. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the 5[th] respondent or his men cannot obstruct the staff or the petitioner in loading and unloading materials inside the campus of Nalanda Arts and Science College, inasmuch as the work performed by them in loading and unloading materials is incidental to the functioning of that institution. 2. On 22.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. The learned Standing Counsel took notice on admission for the 4[th] respondent. This -4- WP(C).No.1821 OF 2021(C) Court issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to the 5[th] respondent, returnable by 25.01.2021. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 3. On 28.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent sought time to file counter affidavit. On a query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4[th] respondent submitted that the area in question is not a scheme covered area. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court granted an interim order directing respondents 2 and 3 to ensure that the 5[th] respondent and his men do not cause any harassment or threat to the staff of the petitioner in unloading materials in vehicle bearing No.KL-48/L-8673 and such other vehicles brought inside the campus of the petitioner's institution in Velikkad. 4. Along with a memo dated 11.02.2021 filed by the learned Government Pleader, a report of the 3[rd] respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Hemambikanagar Police Station is -5- ## WP(C).No.1821 OF 2021(C) placed on record. The 5[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner has filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent. 5. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the -6- WP(C).No.1821 OF 2021(C) provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law. 6. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus; "In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, welltrained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice. The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants." 7. In **Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary** **[(2014) 2 SCC 532]** the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and -7- ## WP(C).No.1821 OF 2021(C) property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in **Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470]** . 8. As already noticed hereinbefore, the area in which the petitioner's educational institution is situated is not a scheme covered area. In such circumstances, the 5[th] respondent or the headload workers under him cannot claim any loading and unloading work in the petitioner's institution, as a matter of right. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; - (i) The 3[rd] respondent shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of the 5[th] respondent or the head load worker under him, in connection with any loading and unloading work in the petitioner's institution. -8- WP(C).No.1821 OF 2021(C) - (ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the staff of the petitioner from the side of the 5[th] respondent or the head load workers under him, the petitioner shall move the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer with a request for Police protection. - (iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. No order as to costs. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/26/2 -9- WP(C).No.1821 OF 2021(C) ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFILIATION GRANTED BY CALICUT UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER IN U.O.NO.8593 OF 2020/ADMN. DATED 26.09.2020.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS PERTAINING TO THE VEHICLE BEARING GOODS INSIDE THE CAMPUS OF THE PETITIONER AND REFUSED TO BE UNLOADED.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO EXHIBIT P3. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 12/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE FRIENDS ELECTRO COLORING, THIRUVILLWAMALA TO THE PETITIONER**