Madras High Court
M/S.Vgp Housing Private Limited vs The Commissioner Of Police on 1 February, 2021
W.P.No.1934 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 01.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.1934 of 2021
M/s.VGP Housing Private Limited,
Rep. by its Director,
Mr. VGP Babudoss,
No.6, Dharmaraja Koil Street,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police,
No.132, Commandant Office Building,
EVK Sampath Road,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Dr.Muthu Lakshmi Road,
Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Singaravelan Street,
2nd Street, Neelankarai,
Chennai – 600 041.
4. The Inspector of Police,
J-12, Kannathur Police Station,
East Coast Road,
Kanathur, Chennai – 603 112.
5. Raja .. Respondents
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1934 of 2021
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to provide
adequate police protection to the petitioner for putting up a barbed fence
around the land in Plot Nos. C1, C2 and C3 and Plot Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5
comprised in Survey No.2/2B2 part measuring to a total extent of 27,575
sq.ft situated at VGP Golden Beach Uthandi Part II, Uthandi Village,
Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District within the time stipulated by
this Court, based on the petitioner's representation dated 18/12/2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali
For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1 to R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of mandamus
directing the respondent police to provide police protection to the petitioner
to fence their property pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner
on 18.12.2020.
2.The case of the petitioner Company is that the property originally
belonged to one V.S.Ranganathan by virtue of registered partition deed
dated 29.10.1964. The Said V.S.Ranganathan executed a registered power
of attorney in favour of the petitioner Company through document dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1934 of 2021
05.12.1981. According to the petitioner Company, the agency is coupled
with interest and the interest of the petitioner is safe-guarded under Section
202 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
3.The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Company
thereafter developed a residential layout. While so, an attempt was made by
the 5th respondent to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the
petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing a suit in O.S.No.555 of 2013
against the 5th respondent and four others for the relief of permanent
injunction. This suit came to be decreed by Judgment and Decree dated
24.07.2017. According to the petitioner, this judgment has become final and
no steps have been take to file any appeal or file any petition to set aside
the ex-parte decree.
4.The petitioner gave a complaint before the respondent police on
18.12.2020 seeking for police protection to fence the subject property on the
ground that the 5th respondent is continuously causing threat with the help of
some unknown persons and as a result of the same, the petitioner is not
able to fence the property. Since this complaint was not acted upon by the
respondent police, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court
seeking for appropriate directions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1934 of 2021
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.
6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case
and also of the fact that there is already a Civil Court Decree passed in
favour of the petitioner, there shall be a direction to the 4 th respondent to
call the parties for an enquiry and instruct the 5th respondent not to cause
any threat to the office bearers of the petitioner Company and not to
interfere with the possession of the property. The 4th respondent shall
further instruct the 5th respondent to workout his remedy in the manner
known to law. If n spite of such instructions being given to the 5 th
respondent, any attempt is made to cause threat or to interfere with the
possession and enjoyment, immediate action shall be taken in accordance
with law. If required police protection shall also given to the petitioner to
enable them to fence the property.
7.This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs.
01.02.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1934 of 2021
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
No.132, Commandant Office Building,
EVK Sampath Road,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Dr.Muthu Lakshmi Road,
Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Singaravelan Street,
2nd Street, Neelankarai,
Chennai – 600 041.
4. The Inspector of Police,
J-12, Kannathur Police Station,
East Coast Road,
Kanathur, Chennai – 603 112.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1934 of 2021
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J
ssr
W.P.No.1934 of 2021
01.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
