SUSEELA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is one of the "police protection suits", which are being regularly filed before this Court. This Court has no power or authority under the Constitution to entertain such suits. The petitioners, who are husband and wife, have placed a very complicated civil dispute before this Court for its adjudication and based on the finding on that issue, to render assistance to them. But, in this police protection jurisdiction, we are concerned only with the point whether this Court should issue a writ of mandamus to the police. A writ of mandamus can be issued to a Police Officer if only, it is shown that the Officer has failed to discharge his statutory duties. We notice that none of the statutes in force in India authorizes the police to look into a civil dispute, enter a finding thereon and based on that finding, protect the person who is found eligible by him for such protection.

(2.) IN this case, the first petitioner is the owner of a property having an extent of 20 cents, covered by title deed Nos. 2501/95 and 3788/95 of Sub Registry, Sasthamcotta. After re-survey, it was found that the property in his possession has an extent of 24. 5 cents. Claiming possession and title over the entire property and seeking appropriate reliefs in the face of interference by respondents 4 to 6, the first petitioner filed O. S. No. 40/02 before the Munsiff-Magistrate's Court, Sasthamcotta. The said suit was dismissed. The 1st petitioner appealed. There was an attempt by the defendants/respondents therein to cut and remove the trees standing in the disputed portion of the property. The 1st petitioner moved the appellate court and the appellate court by Exhibit P9 order, restrained both sides from cutting and removing the trees standing in the disputed portion of the property, which is shown as ABC in Ext. C2 plan, produced before the trial court. The petitioners submit, the party respondents herein, ignoring the order of the civil court, are trespassing into the disputed property and committing waste there. They have cut and removed the small trees standing therein except one 'anjili' tree. When the petitioners tried to resist, the respondents 4 to 6 started threatening them with dire consequences. The said respondents are posing a serious threat to their life. So, the petitioners filed Exhibit P8 representation before the Sub Inspector of Police, claiming police protection. Thereafter, they filed Exhibit P10 detailed representation in English, running to six pages, before the Sub Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta, as also the Superintendent of Police, Kollam. Now, this writ Petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs. i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents 2 and 3 to provide immediate, adequate, sufficient and effective police protection to the lives and property of the Petitioners and other family members from the illegal action of Respondents 4 to 6 and their henchmen or anybody claiming through them in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1st petitioner's property without any obstruction or objection, and direct the respondents 4 to 6 to prevent cutting and removing the trees standing therein and committing any waste and if they interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1st petitioner's property, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are duty bound to take immediate action against them and punish them accordingly. ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents 2 and 3 to act according to law and see that the Petitioners and their family members are not harassed and victimized by the Respondents 4 to 6 and their henchmen or anybody claiming through them. "

(3.) WE notice that the dispute regarding the right to enter the disputed portion of the property is a civil dispute, which is pending before the District Court, Kollam. If the party respondents are doing something contrary to law, the remedy of the petitioners is to move that court itself and not to approach the police. The police cannot be asked to meddle in the civil dispute, which is pending before the competent court and is the subject-matter of an interim order also. Violation of that order is also alleged. But, for the violation of the order of the civil court, the police cannot take any action. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents 4 to 6 are threatening the petitioners and their lives are in danger. "threat to life" is attempted to be used as an "open sesame" in many "police protection suits" like this. If the petitioners do not enter or resist the activities of respondents 4 to 6 in the disputed property, there will not be any threat to their lives. In other words, if they go around attending their normal business, there will be no threat to their lives. If protection is ordered, using that protection order, the petitioners can tilt the balance in the matter of possession of the property. Therefore, the prayer for police protection cannot be granted. "