Saraswathi Amma v The State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.662 OF 2021(G)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SARASWATHI AMMA, AGED 70 YEARS W/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, VAZHAPPALLIL PADINJATTATHIL, VENGA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN 690 521** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |**2**|**THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (RURAL)**| ||**KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN 691 506**| |**3**|**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER**| ||**SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION,**| ||**SASTHAMCOTTA (P.O.),**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 521**| |**4**|**OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI**| ||**AGED 57 YEARS**| ||**S/O.KUNJAN PILLAI, VAZHAPPALLIL THEKKATHIL,**| ||**VENGA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE,**| ||**KUNNATHOOR THALUK,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN 690 521**| |**5**|**VISHNU**| ||**AGED 32 YEARS**| ||**S/O.OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI, VAZHAPPALLIL THEKKATHIL,**| ||**VENGA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE,**| ||**KUNNATHOOR THALUK,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN 690 521**| WP(C).No.662 OF 2021(G) 2 **6 ASHA AGED 51 YEARS W/O.OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI, VAZHAPPALLIL THEKKATHIL, VENGA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN 690 521** **R1-R3 BY SRI SUNIL NATH N.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4-R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.I.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA R4-R6 BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH R4-R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.SARATHKRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.662 OF 2021(G) 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of the property having an extent of 1 Are 50 sq. meters in ReSy.No.438/15, Block No.10 of Mynagappally Village, covered by Ext.P1 tax receipt dated 28.05.2019. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life and properties of the petitioner; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner, and her workers for construction of a compound wall on the northern side of Ext.P1 property on the basis of Ext.P2 sketch plan; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent to take appropriate action upon Ext.P4 petition filed by the petitioner. 2. On 11.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to respondents 4 to 6, returnable within two weeks. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions and file statement on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent. This WP(C).No.662 OF 2021(G) 4 Court granted an interim order directing the 3[rd] respondent to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of respondents 4 to 6. 3. Along with the memo filed by the learned Government Pleader, the report dated 16.01.2021 of the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer is placed on record. In the report it is stated that there is some boundary dispute between the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent. The 4[th] respondent objected construction of boundary wall by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a complaint before the 3[rd] respondent on 04.01.2021. The 3[rd] respondent directed both parties to maintain status quo until the dispute is settled by the competent civil court and they were warned from creating any law and order issues. Subsequently the 4[th] respondent approached the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta in O.S.No.11 of 2021, which is pending consideration. As per the report of the 3[rd] respondent, at present there is no law and order issues. 4. Respondents 4 to 6 have also filed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, in which the pendency of O.S.No.11 of 2021 before the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta filed for fixation of boundaries is also pointed out. In WP(C).No.662 OF 2021(G) 5 the said counter affidavit, the party respondents have stated that they neither threatened the petitioner nor committed any unlawful acts, as alleged. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 ot 6. 6. 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 provisions of the Act, perform the WP(C).No.662 OF 2021(G) 6 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. 7. 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, well-trained 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." 8. 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 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. WP(C).No.662 OF 2021(G) 7 ## The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in **Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470]** . 9. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 6, as noticed hereinbefore, is that they never threatened the petitioner nor committed any unlawful acts. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since boundary dispute is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta in O.S.No.11 of 2021, the petitioner will not construct compound wall during the pendency of that suit. 11. The learned Government Pleader would submit that, as stated in the report of the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer, at present there is not law and order issues in the locality. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: - (i) In case there is any threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of respondents 4 to 6 or their supporters, the petitioner shall move the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer with a request for Police protection. (iii) In that event, the 3[rd] respondent shall take necessary WP(C).No.662 OF 2021(G) 8 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** JV **JUDGE** WP(C).No.662 OF 2021(G) 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF PROPERTY IN RE-SURVEY NUMBER 438/15, BLOCK NO.10 OF MYNAGAPPALLY BELONGS TO PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE REGISTERS OF MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE OFFICE EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE THALUK SURVEYOR TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE R.T.I. ACT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND ITS RECEIPT DATED 4.1.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.11/2021 DATED 13.01.2021 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT SASTHAMCOTTA**