T. D. Chandrasekharan v. Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram; Superintendent of Police, Kottayam; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palai; Circle Inspector of Police, Palai; Station House Officer, Palai; District Collector, Kottayam; and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.3913 OF 2021(L)** ## **PETITIONER:** **T.D.CHANDRASEKHARAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O.DAMODARAN, THARAYIL HOUSE, PULIYANNUR P.O., PULIYANNOOR KARA, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MUTHOLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 573.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR SHRI.MURALEEDHARAN A. SRI.VISHNU BABU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM 686 001.** - **3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 575** - **4 THE CIRCLE INPSECTOR OF POLICE PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 575** - **5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 575** - **6 DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM 686 001.** -2- WP(C).No.3913 OF 2021(L) - **7 K.J.ABRAHAM** **AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.JOHN, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL P.O., KEZHUVAMKULAM KARA, KOZHUVANAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN 686 573** **8 TOMY JOSEPH AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, TALAVAYALIL HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL P.O., KEZHUVAMKULAM KARA, KOZHUVANAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN 686 573** **9 JOLY GEORGE AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, KUNNATHUMAKKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., POOVARANI KARA, KOZHUVANAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN 686 585** **10 T.V.GEORGE AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, KAYPPAMPLACKAL HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL P.O., AANIKKADU VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, CHENGALAM EAST VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 573.** **11 P.M.JOSEPH AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, PAYMALAYIL HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL P.O., KEZHUVAMKULAM KARA, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN 686 573** **12 SHINE K. GEORGE AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, KAYPPAMPLACKAL HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL P.O., AANIKKADU VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, CHENGALAM EAST VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 573.** - **13 SAJEEV J.** **AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, VADAKKEL HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL P.O., KEZHUVAMKULAM KARA, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN 686 573** -3- WP(C).No.3913 OF 2021(L) - **14 JOY THOMAS** - **AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, CHOLAYILLAPLACKAL HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL P.O., KEZHUVAMKULAM KARA, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN 686 573** - **15 BINOY THOMAS** - **AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, KUTTYKATTU HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL P.O., POOVARANY KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 573** **16 ANIL SEBASTIAN AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, CHERIPULATHU HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., POOVARANY KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 585** **17 P.C.GEORGE AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.CHERIYAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, THODANAL P.O., POOVARANY KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 573** - **18 T.C.JOSEPH AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, KAYPPANPLACKAL THALAVAYAL HOUSE, KALLOORKALAM P.O., KEZHUVAMKULAM KARA, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. PIN 686 503.** **19 SANO JOSE AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.JOSE, KAYPPANPLACKAL THALAVAYAL HOUSE, KALLOORKALAM P.O., KEZHUVAMKULAM KARA, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK- PIN 686 503.** - **20 GEORGE THOMAS AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, MANIYANGATTU PARAMPAKATHU HOUSE, KALLOORKULAM P.O., AANIKKADU VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, CHENGALAM EAST VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK PIN 686 503** - **21 BABY THOMAS AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, MANIYANGATTU NEGRIYAL HOUSE, KALLOORKULAM P.O., AANIKKADU VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, CHENGALAM EAST VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK PIN 686 503** -4- ## WP(C).No.3913 OF 2021(L) **22 JOSE THOMAS AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, MANIYANGATTU PARAYIL HOUSE, KALLOORKULAM P.O., AANIKKADU VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, CHENGALAM EAST VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK PIN 686 503 23 SAJI JOSEPH AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, NAGAMATTAM HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., POOVARANI KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PIN 686 585 24 MATHUKUTTY CHERIYAN AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.CHERIYAN, SRAKATHU HOUSE, KALLOORKULAM P.O., KEZHUVAMKULAM KARA, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PIN 686 503.** **R1-6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SUNIL NATH N.B R13, R16-21, R23-24 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.) R13, R16-21, R23-24 BY ADV. SMT.PREETHI. P.V. R13, R16-21, R23-24 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BALAGOPAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -5- WP(C).No.3913 OF 2021(L) ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is a PWD contractor, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner, his family members and workers. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is having certain disputes with respondents 7 to 24 in connection with installation of a tar mixing plant, which is now pending consideration before the Sub Court, Pala in A.S.No.2 of 2021, arising out of the judgment and decree of the Munsiff's Court, Pala in O.S.No.307 of 2018. 2. On 16.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 6. This Court issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to respondents 7 to 24, returnable by 22.02.2021. The petitioner was directed to file an application to implead the concerned Environmental Engineer of the Kerala Pollution Control Board, as additional respondent. The learned Government Pleader was directed to -6- WP(C).No.3913 OF 2021(L) get instructions from the 4[th] respondent. 3. Though the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking an order to implead the District Environmental Engineer, the description of the additional respondent sought to be impleaded was incomplete. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw that application, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a proper application with correct and complete description of the said respondent. On 22.02.2021, based on the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said interlocutory application was dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh application. 4. On 22.02.2021, respondents 13, 16 to 21, 23 and 24 entered appearance through counsel and sought time to file counter affidavit. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the 5[th] respondent Station House Officer. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 13, 16 to 21, 23 and 24 opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it is -7- WP(C).No.3913 OF 2021(L) stated that they have no intention to cause any threat to the petitioner or his family members or his workers. Since the tar mixing plant is not functioning after 31.03.2020, there is no question of any workers employed by the petitioner at the site. The petitioner has also not obtained after 31.03.2020. 6. Along with a memo dated 23.02.2021 filed by the learned Government Pleader, a statement of the 4[th] respondent Station House Officer is placed on record, wherein it is stated that at present there is no law and order issues in the locality. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and also the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 13, 16 to 21, 23 and 24. 8. 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 -8- ## WP(C).No.3913 OF 2021(L) 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 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. 9. 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. WP(C).No.3913 OF 2021(L) -9- 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." 10. 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. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in **Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470]** . 11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would confine the relief sought for in this writ petition as one for protection of the life of the petitioner, his family members and also to his property. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has no intention to operate the tar mixing plant, in the property in question, pending consideration of A.S.No.2 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Court, Pala. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 13, 16 -10- ## WP(C).No.3913 OF 2021(L) to 21, 23 and 24 would point out the specific stand taken by the said respondents in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. 13. The learned Government Pleader would submit that at present there is no 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 the life of the petitioner, his family members or his property, from the side of respondents 7 to 24, the petitioner shall move the 5[th] respondent Station House Officer with a request for Police protection. - (ii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 5[th] 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. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/18/3 -11- WP(C).No.3913 OF 2021(L) ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE O.S.NO.307/2018 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALA.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROSECUTION PETITION I.A.NO.2157/18** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.307/2018** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.307/2018** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION FOR IMPLEMENTING THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE A.S.NO.2/2021 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PALA.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2/2021 IN A.S.NO.2/2021 OF THE SUB COURT, PALA.** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9.2.2021**