Police protection cannot be granted based on vague allegations of threats. A person must exhaust their remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure before seeking police protection through a writ petition.

( 1 ) THE petitioner had approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction by filing W. P. No. 4963 (W) of 2006. It was the allegation of the petitioner in that petition that the Mutwalli of the mosque at 55, Biplabi Anukul Chandra street, Kolkata - 700 072 (respondent No. 9) was illegally raising construction in violation of the extant Building Rules and thereby affecting the air, light and ventilation of the premises of the petitioner and despite having complained to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereafter the said Cor-poration)against such illegal construction, no steps had been taken by the said Corporation.

( 2 ) IT appears that W. P. No. 4963 (W) of 2006 has been disposed of by this hon'ble Court on 26. 4. 2006 with a direction upon the Executive Engineer, borough No. VI, Building Department of the said Corporation to consider the petitioner's grievance as contained in Annexure P-4 to the petition and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to her as well as the Mutwalli within a period of 8 weeks from date of communication of the order. It was further directed that the mutwalli would be restrained from raising any "further construction in the concerned mosque without any valid sanction plan".

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner on 17. 3. 2006 has preferred the present petition. The fact that the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court earlier with the grievance that the said corporation has not disposed of her representation, has not been disclosed. However when this petition was taken up for hearing, it has been disclosed before this Court that an order has been passed on 26. 4. 2006 disposing of the said petition. Copy of the order dated 26. 4. 2006 has been placed before this Court. Replying to a query raised by this Court, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the said Corporation is yet to communicate to the petitioner, decision taken by it on her representation in compliance with the aforesaid order dated 26. 4. 2006.

( 4 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent no. 3 has been erecting concrete pillars almost adjacent to the western wall of her premises by digging soil, thereby affecting the very foundation of the wall. She apprehends that the wall might collapse resulting in destruction of her premises. It is the petitioner's contention that this is being done by the respondent No. 3 without valid sanction plan from the said Corporation. It is her further case that she has made several requests to the respondent no. 3 to stop the illegal construction but the respondent No. 3 has threatened the petitioner and her family members of dire consequences if they raise any objection.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has further alleged that she had complained to the officer-in-Charge, Bowbazar Police Station (respondent No. 2) in writing on 13. 3. 2006 indicating the threat given by the respondent No. 3 to her and other members of her family and her apprehension of breach of peace in the locality. In the complaint, the petitioner mentioned that if the illegal and unauthorized construction carried on by the respondent No. 3 is not interdicted, that would cause serious damage to the petitioner's property thereby endangering the lives of the members of her family and also the people of her neighbourhood. Ultimately she prayed as follows:"so, it is very necessary to restrain the said Mutwali and his men and agents from making such illegal and unauthorized construction and also from digging soil close to my Western side building wall, otherwise my said building be damaged and/or collapsed ,and also request to make peace and tranquillity in the locality".

( 6 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has raised the grievance that despite receiving the said complaint, the respondent No. 2 has neither taken any step against the respondent No. 3 and his associates nor has. he given necessary police help and prote

Click Here to Read the rest of this document