T.N. Sadasivan v. The Station House Officer, Kalady Police Station, Ernakulam District & Others

``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT ``` ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 36019 OF 2023`** ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` T.N.SADASIVAN AGED64YEARS ``` ``` THOMBAKUDYHOUSE,AALATTUCHIRAP.O.,PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683544. ``` ``` BYADVP.M.ARUNDAS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683574.`** - **`2 K.J. BABU KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., EATTAKADAVU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574.`** - **`3 SAJI K.S KANAKKASSERY HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., COMPANYPADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574.`** - **`4 K.J. AJITH KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., EATTAKADAVU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574.`** - **`5 SIVAN K.K KOCHATHI HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTAMAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574.`** - **`6 DILEEP K.V KOSHANAI HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., SANTHIPURAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574.`** - **`7 SABITHA SUBHASH POOTHELY HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., COMPANYPADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574.`** - **`8 MURALEEDHARAN K.N. KARIMBANACKAL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., EATTAKADAVU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574.`** - **`9 BASHEER, KOLLASERRY HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., COMPANYPADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574.`** ``` WP(C)NO.36019OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 10VALSANK.K KOCHATHIHOUSE,NEELESWARAMP.O.,KOTTAMAM,ERNAKULAM, PIN-683574. ``` ``` BYADVS. SABUGEORGE. P.B.KRISHNAN(K/1193/1994) P.B.SUBRAMANYAN(K/1145/2009) MANUVYASANPETER(K/000652/2013) ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 14.03.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NO.36019OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that he is an office bearer of the Kunnathunadu SNDP Union. He states that the Neeleswaram SNDP Sakha comes under the Union. The former President and Secretary were removed from their respective posts by the General Secretary and the Committee was thrown out of office and an Administrative Committee was appointed. When the Administrative Committee attempted to take charge, the party respondents are stated to have threatened them and did not hand over the keys of the office. It is also alleged that an Administrative Committee member by name, Sri. Sunil Kumar, was manhandled by the party respondent. Based on the complaint lodged by him, Crime No. 915/2023 of the Kalady Police station has been registered. It is stated that the petitioner approached the official respondents and lodged a complaint. However, no action has been taken. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command 1st respondent to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and administrative committee of SNDP Sakha, Neeleswaram, to enter into the premises of the SNDP Sakha Office, Neeleswaram without any manner of threat, hindrance or obstruction from the respondent No. 2 to 10 and their men and agents and also direct the 1st respondent to provide adequate protection for the smooth functioning of Sakha Office, Neeleswaram by hand over the key and documents of the office from the respondent No. 2 to 10 and ``` WP(C)NO.36019OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` to run the Sakha Office, Neeleswaram peacefully ; - B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command 1st respondent to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and administrative committee of SNDP Sakha, Neeleswaram and command and restrain respondent No. 2 to 10 from breakdown the law and order in the office premises of SNDP Sakha, Neeleswaram by their illegal and criminal acts. - C. To declare that the petitioner and administrative committee has the right to run the Sakha office, Neeleswaram, peacefully and not to restrain the administrative committee from doing their duties of the Sakha office, Neeleswaram by respondent No. 2 to 10. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the parties have approached the civil court and have instituted suits and counterclaims. It is also submitted that two crimes have been registered and the police are ensuring that law and order is maintained. However, it is submitted that the police cannot be the adjudicator of civil claims or right to office, which matter has to be thrashed out in the civil court. 3. I find that essentially, the prayer in this writ petition is for grant of police protection to the petitioner to enter the premises of the SNDP Sakha office by directing the respondents to hand over the key and documents of office of the Sakha Yogam from the respondents 2 to 10. The short question is whether this Court can be made a forum for deciding the entitlement of the contesting parties to assume the office of the Committee. ``` WP(C)NO.36019OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 4. In **George Mirante[1]** , this Court had occasion to hold that in matters involving civil rights or disputes regarding title and possession over property, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order for police protection. Police cannot be made the adjudicators of such disputes inter se between the parties, either regarding possession of the property, boundaries, easements, or alike matters. These are matters essentially within the domain of the Civil Courts. The parties should approach the appropriate Courts and seek redress. Police do not have the right to decide on such disputes, nor is it proper or competent for them to do so. They do not also have the machinery for the purpose. It is outside the limits of the duties that are cast on them, which is to prevent a breach of peace or commission of cognizable offenses and to preserve law and order. 5. In **P. R. Murlidharan[2]** , it was held by the Apex Court that a writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favor of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another > 1 George Mirante v. State of Kerala [1990 (2) KLT 89] > 2 P. R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar [2006 (4) SCC 501] ``` WP(C)NO.36019OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status, or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations. ## 6. In **Gladstone George Varghese[3] ,** a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to observe as under: 19. In a writ petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is not entitled to an order for police protection as a matter of right. Similarly, in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot grant an order for police protection as a matter of course. In order to seek police protection under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has to first approach the concerned Station House Officer with a proper complaint against those who are causing a threat to his life/property and/or a 'law and order' issue in the locality. Since a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a failure on the part of that officer concerned to discharge the statutory obligation, in the complaint filed before the concerned Station House Officer, which is the foundation upon which a writ petition seeking police protection has been built, the writ petitioner has to disclose his legal right to compel performance of a statutory duty cast upon that officer. > 3 Gladstone George Varghese v. District Police Chief, Office of the DSP, Kollam [2023 (7) KHC 30] ``` WP(C)NO.36019OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` 7. Having considered the principles of law laid down above, I am of the view that it would not be proper for this Court to issue directions to the police to grant protection to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to enter into the office of the Sakha or to issue directions to the party respondents to hand over the keys to the petitioner. The petitioner will have to approach the civil court and get his rights established. 8. However, necessary directions can be issued to the police to maintain law and order. Both sides shall ensure that they abide by the directions issued by the civil court and do not precipitate the matter, leading to disruption of law and order. In view of the discussion above, the petitioner is directed to approach the civil court and get his rights established. Till such time, the 1st respondent shall ensure that law and order is maintained. If any complaint is lodged by either of the parties, it is for the 1st respondent to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations and take appropriate action. This writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** ``` Sru ``` ``` WP(C)NO.36019OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36019/2023`** ``` PETITIONEREXHIBITS ExhibitP1 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFEXTRACTOFYOGAMCOUNCILMEETING. ``` ``` ExhibitP2TRUECOPYFIRINCRIMENO.915/2023OFKALADY POLICESTATION. ```