Point of Law - Where civil rights of a party seeking for police protection in writ proceedings have already been duly finalized in civil litigative proceedings and they have secured decrees of court, which have been affirmed, and even execution proceedings have also been completed and thereafter, if any further obstruction is caused to such beneficiaries, then, police protection could be granted in discretionary exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and such persons need not be again driven to civil courts.

JUDGMENT

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

These appeals are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment as they arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 27.05.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge in the instant Writ Petition (Civil), WP(C) No.15991/2022. For the sake of convenience, WA No.741/2022 filed by the petitioners in WP(C) No.15991/2022 is taken as the leading case. WA No.741/2022

2. The appellants herein are the petitioners in the writ petition and the respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition.

3. The prayers in the instant writ petition, WP(C) No.15991/2022, are as follows;

“i. Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other writ order or direction compelling the Respondent Nos.7 to 9 to afford necessary and sufficient police protection to the Petitioners and their employees at the Panniyankara toll plaza at Vadakkancherry to collect user fee/toll fees from the users of the project highway in accordance with law and in particular from the private buses plying through the said route without any let, hindrance or obstruction from members of respondents 13 to 15 and their men and agents.

ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other writ order or direction directing the Respondents Nos.5, 10 and 11 to ensure that the private buses plying through the project highway and passing through the Panniyankara toll plaza are fitted with FASTags.

iii. Issue such other writ, order or direction as may be just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. The main plea of the petitioners in the writ proceedings is for seeking a mandamus to compel the official respondents 7 to 9 (police authorities) to afford necessary police protection to them and their employees at the Panniyankara toll plaza at Vadakkancherry, Thrissur District, to collect user fee/toll fee from the users of the project highway. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has disposed of the writ petition as per the impugned judgment dated 27.05.2022, whereby it has been ordered that, the petitioners can now be permitted to operate the toll plaza by collecting fee only on the basis of the rates mentioned in Ext.P6 proceedings dated 05.03.2022 and that, as of now, they are not legally entitled to charge the revised fee covered by Ext.P13 dated 30.03.2022, unless such revision has been made in accordance with the rules. The present intra court appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners on the limited plea that the learned Single Judge should have actually permitted the writ petitioners to collect the revised fee in terms of Ext.P13 with effect from 01.04.2022 and that, the direction in the impugned judgment to the extent that the petitioners can collect fee only on the basis of the pre-revised rate, as per Ext.P6, is not correct inasmuch as the revision, as per Ext.P13, has taken effect from 01.04.2022. The direction to grant police protection to collect fee at the rate at Ext.P6 has not been challenged by the contesting respondents.

5. Heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri.Thomas P. Kuruvilla, learned counsel appearing for the appellants; Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 & 4 to 11; Sri.S.Manu, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the 2nd respondent/Union of India; Sri.B.G.Bidan Chandran, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI appearing for the 3rd respondent; Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel appearing for the 12th respondent; Sri.P.Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the 13th respondent; and Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing for respondents 14 & 15; and Sri.K.B.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 16 & 17.

6. A brief reference to the facts of this case would be pertinent. The case of the appellants/petitioners is that, on the basis of Ext.P1 concession agreement dated 24.08.2009 exe