Kerala High Court
Saraswathi Amma vs The State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2021
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 Re-
Sy.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)
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 4th respondent objected construction of boundary
wall by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a complaint before
the 3rd 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)
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)
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)
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 3rd respondent
Station House Officer with a request for Police
protection.
(iii) In that event, the 3rd respondent shall take necessary
WP(C).No.662 OF 2021(G)
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)
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
