R DIVAKARAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner against culpable, violent and illegal acts of respondents 4 and 5.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he has been permitted to put up a residential building in a property belonging to him. Ext.P1 is the permit. The Secretary of Kollam Corporation had issued Ext.P2 to confirm that the building can be put up in the property subject to the building permit. ACCORDING to the petitioner, when the petitioner commenced work, respondents 4 and 5 are objecting to the work. This obstruction is illegal. In these circumstances, it is prayed that police protection may be ordered in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 4 and 5, though served, have not chosen to enter appearance. Indications suggest that the objection, if any, is not personal to respondents 4 and 5 and that objections are raised on behalf of proper conduct of the local temple festival. The temple or its Committee are not arrayed as parties. We are, in these circumstances, of the opinion that it may not be expedient to permit the petitioner to arm himself with a blanket order of police protection. If respondents 4 and 5 or any others are raising objections on the ground that conduct of the festival in the local temple would be interfered with by the construction, we are certainly of opinion that the petitioner must go to the civil court and seek appropriate directions. We are not persuaded to agree, notwithstanding the fact that respondents 4 and 5 have not chosen to appear in spite of service of notice, to arm the petitioner with any order of police protection. We apprehend that the order of police protection may be used against others who are raising objections for the constructions of the building for whatever reasons that they have to urge. It will be appropriate, we are satisfied, in these circumstances, to relegate the petitioner to the civil court and seek his remedy. We are not persuaded to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution.