SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Ker) 584

Judges : CYRIAC JOSEPH,K.K.DENESAN
Vijayakumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : W.P. (C) No. 29634 of 2003
Decided On : 10/10/2003
Advocates Appeared :
K.L. Narasimhan For Petitioner. Government Pleader (P.V. Lonachan) &P.M.Mohammed Shiraz For Respondent

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Kerala University Students Union - Respondents 5 to 10 have been organising strike and violent activities inside the college premises and they are also involved in destruction of the properties of the college - Petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order to respondents 1 to 4, to give necessary, adequate and meaningful protection to the petitioner and the properties of the college against any demonstration or violent action on the part of respondents 5 to 10 consequent on the removal of respondents 5 to 9 from the register of the College - Held, Criminal activities or to take action against persons who commit criminal offences - No special treatment can be meted out to them on the ground that they are students or that the offence is committed inside the college campus - Anybody who damages the property of the college should be made liable to compensate such loss - Writ Petition is disposed of.

Judgment :-

Cyriac Joseph, J.

The petitioner in this Writ Petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is the Principal of the N.S.S. College, Pandalam (hereinafter referred to as 'the College'). He prays for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order to respondents 1 to 4, namely, the State of Kerala, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam, the Circle Inspector of Police, Pandalam and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoor to give necessary, adequate and meaningful protection to the petitioner and the properties of the college against any demonstration or violent action on the part of respondents 5 to 10 consequent on the removal of respondents 5 to 9 from the register of the College. Respondents 5 to 9 are students of the college and respondent No. 10 is a former student of the college.

2. According to the averments in the petition a section of the students has been creating disturbance to the smooth running of the college. Respondents 5 to 10 have been organising strike and violent activities inside the college premises. They are also involved in destruction of the properties of the college. The 10th respondent who is a former student of the college and the Vice Chairman of the Kerala University Students Union forcibly entered the room of the Principal on 30th June 2003 and demanded an explanation from him for banning politics in the college campus. The petitioner told him that in order to ensure peaceful atmosphere in the college campus and proper conduct of classes it was necessary to maintain discipline and that no demonstration would be allowed inside the college campus. The petitioner also told him that the students could organise peaceful and legal demonstration outside the premises of the college without affecting the functioning of the college. Then the 10th respondent abused the petitioner using filthy and indecent language. The petitioner brought the said conduct of the 10th respondent to the notice of the College Council at its meeting held on 1st July 2003 and the College Council passed a resolution condemning the behaviour of the 10th respondent. The said resolution was sent to the Vice Chancellor, University of Kerala and the Chairman, Kerala University Students Union. On 11th July 2003 some students under the leadership of the 5th respondent started a campaign and 'bucket collection' of money during class time. When the petitioner objected to it the 5th respondent along with his friends trespassed into the Principal's room and shouted slogans using obscene language and attempted to assault the petitioner thrice. Then the staff and the security persons intervened and saved the petitioner from physical attack of the 5th respondent and his friends. But they locked the petitioner and the staff inside the room and demonstrated outside shouting slogans using obscene language. They did not allow anybody to enter the Principal's room or to get out of the room. After an hour the third respondent, Circle Inspector of Police, Pandalam arrived, removed the students and released the petitioner and the staff. Again on 16th July 2003respondents 5 to 10 physically obstructed the functioning of the college and prevented the regular students from attending classes. They organised violent demonstration inside the college campus with the aid of local politicians. They 'picketed' the Principal's room and raised provocative slogans and threatened to burn the petitioner and his office. They also forcibly entered the Principal's room. Hence the petitioner was compelled to submit Ext.P-2 petition dated 16th July 2003 to the second respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam requesting for police protection for conducting admission to the 1st year B.Sc./B.A./B.Com. classes scheduled on 17th, 18th and 21st July 2003. He also submitted Ext.P-3 petition dated 16th July 2003 to the third respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Pandalam making an identical request.

3. On 22nd July 2003 the Staff Council













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top