Abdurahiman C.K vs The District Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 8794 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      W.P.(C) No.6460 OF 2021(F)


PETITIONER:

               ABDURAHIMAN C.K.,
               AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.ALAVI KUTTY HAJEE C.K.,
               PRINCE ALLOYS (PVT) LTD.,
               KARINGANAD, KOPPAM,
               PATTAMBI-VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
               RESIDING AT MIZMAZ HOUSE,
               VELLARANGAL, MANJERI HEAD POST OFFICE P.O.,
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
               OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
               PUDUPALLI THERUVU, NURANI P.O.,
               PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 004.

      2        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
               KOPPAM POLICE STATION, KOPPAM POST,
               PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 014.

      3        RAMESWAR RAM,
               HOUSE NO.264, BHUALPUR VILLAGE,
               BHUALPUR POST, SARAN,
               BIHAR STATE, PIN-841 415.


      R1&R2    SRI.SUNIL NATH N.B., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.6460 OF 2021(F)
                                 -2-


                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the manager of Prince Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

located at Koppam engaged in the manufacture of Mild Steel

Ingots, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding

respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate, effective and meaningful

police protection to the lawful functioning of Prince Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

from any threat from the 3rd respondent or his men. Going by the

averments in the writ petition, the worker namely, Kameswar Ram,

who was engaged by the contractor, died in an accident that

occurred in the factory, which according to the petitioner, was

solely due to the carelessness of the deceased worker. The 2 nd

respondent Station House Officer registered Crime No.162/2019

under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After

investigation, the police filed Ext.P1 final report before the Sub

Divisional Magistrate, stating that the death was due to accident

and hence investigation was concluded. According to the petitioner,

recently people who claims to be the relatives of the deceased

worker are calling him over phone from different phone numbers,

seemingly from Bihar and demanding compensation for the death W.P.(C) No.6460 OF 2021(F)

of the worker, who gave an ultimatum that they would resort to

violence, if the amount is not paid. The petitioner filed Ext.P2

complaint dated 06.03.2021 before the 2 nd respondent Station

House Officer seeking protection and thereafter, moved this writ

petition before this Court with the aforesaid relief.

2. On 12.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission, after arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the

petitioner sought adjournment.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and

2.

4. The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether

this writ petition can be entertained in the absence of any specific

pleadings in Ext.P2 complaint filed before the 2 nd respondent

Station House Officer or even in the statement of facts of this writ

petition.

5. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC

534] the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a

point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party

raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove W.P.(C) No.6460 OF 2021(F)

such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition

and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts

are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not

annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case

may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held

further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the

Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter

affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement,

the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ

petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the

evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to

it.

6. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya

Pradesh [(2011) 7 SCC 639] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex

Court held that, it is a settled proposition of law that a party has to

plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to

substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the

pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to

entertain the pleas. Pleadings and particulars are required to

enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. W.P.(C) No.6460 OF 2021(F)

Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the

controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the

question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate

evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that as a

rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted.

Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds

outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of

pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial

with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded

or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue,

despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court

should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have

a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that

regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of

natural justice.

7. In the absence of any specific pleadings in Ext.P2

complaint filed before the 2nd respondent Station House Officer or

even in the statement of facts of this writ petition as to the alleged

threat from the side of the 3 rd respondent or his men, the

petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ W.P.(C) No.6460 OF 2021(F)

petition.

In such circumstances, this writ petition fails and the same is

accordingly dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of

the petitioner to file a proper complaint before the 2 nd respondent,

in case there is any law and order issues on account of the alleged

threat from the side of the 3 rd respondent and his men, and

thereafter move this Court again, if there is inaction on the part of

the 2nd respondent in discharging his statutory duties.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE bpr W.P.(C) No.6460 OF 2021(F)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.162/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 30.09.2019 BEFORE THE SDM, OTTAPALAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.03.2021 TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL