Principal-in-Charge, Aspire College of Advanced Studies, Thrithala; Academic Director, Aspire College of Advanced Studies, Thrithala v. Station House Officer, Thrithala Police Station, Palakkad District and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K. Narendran
- Judgment Date
- 2021-03-05
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is disposed of with three directions: (i) The 1st respondent shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality at the instance of respondents 2 to 4 or their supporters; (ii) If there is any threat to law and order due to protests by respondents 2 to 4 or their supporters, the petitioners may move the 1st respondent Station House Officer with a request for Police protection, and (iii) Upon such request, the 1st respondent shall take necessary action without delay, having regard to the statutory provisions and the law laid down in the cited decisions. The Court also noted that disciplinary actions are ongoing at the University level and that the petition need not adjudicate those disputes in this proceeding.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of with directions as stated above.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Principal-in-Charge, Aspire College of Advanced Studies, Thrithala
- Academic Director, Aspire College of Advanced Studies, Thrithala
Respondents
- The Station House Officer, Thrithala Police Station, Palakkad District
- Jishad K., S/o Shaharbam
- Rasheed O.P., S/o Muhammed OP
- Manzoor Ali K.T., S/o Saidalikutty
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • K. Mohanakannan
- • P. T. Shahul Hameed
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sunil Nath N.B.
- • K. Aboobacker Sidheeque (for R2-R4)
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioners, who are the Principal-in-Charge and Academic Director of Aspire College of Advanced Studies, affiliated with Calicut University, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to the Station House Officer, Thrithala, to provide adequate police protection for conducting the institution and examinations and to avert threats allegedly posed by respondents 2 to 4 and others, to the smooth functioning of the college. The petition alleges that on 28.12.2020 a group of more than twenty students formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the Academic Director’s cabin, used filthy language, damaged furniture and office properties, and hurled crackers, resulting in the FIR Crime No. 694/2020 under IPC sections 143, 147, 341, 294(b), 427 read with 149. Ext. P1 is the complaint; Ext. P2 is the FIR. Respondents 2 to 4 filed counter-affidavits and submitted Ext. R2(a), a representation to the Calicut University Board for Adjudication of Students Grievances. The Court noted that disciplinary proceedings against the students had been initiated and that the University dispute is within its own machinery. The SHO reportedly indicated there is currently no law-and-order issue. In disposing, the Court held that (i) the SHO must ensure no threat to law and order in the locality at the instance of respondents 2 to 4 or their supporters; (ii) if there is any threat, the petitioners may move the SHO for police protection; and (iii) upon such request, the SHO shall act without delay, referring to statutory provisions and prior decisions. The order reflects a balance between student grievances and maintaining public order, while noting ongoing university processes.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- The Due Process of Law (Lord Denning)
- Police protection of life, liberty and property (Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 532)
- Investigation aims to search for truth and bring the offender to book (Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 15 SCC 470)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners argue that they require police protection to ensure secure conduct of examinations and to prevent threats or disruptions by the student respondents and their supporters, citing recent disturbances and property damage within the college premises. They seek a mandamus directing police protection to safeguard academic activities and to avert any intimidation that could affect examinations and campus functioning.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents oppose broad police interference, noting that disciplinary proceedings against the students are already in progress at the Calicut University and that, at present, there is no substantiated law-and-order threat. They submitted Ext. R2(a), a representation to the University Board, and argued that the campus issues should be addressed through University processes rather than police protection in a writ proceeding.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary | [(2014) 2 SCC 532] | Positive | Reiterates police's duty to protect life, liberty and property and the legitimate role of investigation as a means to uphold rights and order. |
| Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra | [(2019) 15 SCC 470] | Positive | Affirms that investigation aims to discover truth and bring offenders to book, reinforcing the police's duty in maintaining order and upholding rights. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Principal-in-Charge, Aspire College of Advanced Studies, Thrithala; Academic Director, Aspire College of Advanced Studies, Thrithala v. Station House Officer, Thrithala Police Station, Palakkad District and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.