IMPORTANT POINT
A writ petition for police protection cannot resolve civil disputes and must be adjudicated in competent civil courts.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, C. J.

The Appellant/Original Petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27 September 2024 dismissing W.P.(C) No. 33980 of 2024.

2. The Petitioner filed the writ petition for a simplicitor direction to Respondents 1 & 2 – the Principal Secretary, Home Department and Station House Officer, Thalassery Police Station, Kannur District, to provide police protection to him to put up a compound wall, as he apprehended interference by Respondent Nos.3 to 5 – private parties.

3. The learned Single Judge found that there existed a civil dispute, and, therefore, disposed of the writ petition, observing that if the dispute gave rise to any law and order situation, the police would be bound to interfere and ensure that the Petitioner is not put to any physical harm.

4. The case of the Petitioner in the petition is that he is the owner of a property having an extent of 11.30 cents wherein he has constructed a two storeyed building. The said building consists of six self-contained studio flats let out to five tenants. The Petitioner stays in one of the flats. According to the Petitioner, he applied for a licence to construct a compound wall, and the Municipality granted a building permit. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are persons residing next to the Petitioner’s property, who, having vehicular access, objected to the Petitioner putting up of the compound wall. Based on these facts, the Petitioner had initially filed a complaint dated 17 July 2024 before Respondent No.2 requesting for police protection and thereafter filed the writ petition on 25 September 2024.

5. We have heard Mr. Harshadev, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader for the official Respondents.

6. Police protection cannot be asked for issues that fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts, particularly when it involves resolving private disputes between parties. It is well established in law that civil rights must be adjudicated by competent civil courts. The enforcement of civil court orders should be carried out in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or any relevant statute that establishes the appropriate forums for such matters.

7. Turning now to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the Appellant and the private Respondents are neighbours. The Appellant has not placed all the relevant facts before the Court. From the facts that have been placed on record, it can be discerned that the issue is regarding the right of way, and building a compound wall may affect this aspect. However, it is clear that the Appellant has not disclosed all the facts and is attempting to seek police protection to obviate the need for a decision in the civil court. Nothing stops the Appellant from filing a civil suit and seeking an injunction against the private Respondents, restraining them from interfering with the construction and his possession. Instead, the Appellant has sought police protection.

8. Seeking and employing a police force cannot be a means to sidestep the need for dispute resolution in competent courts. Invariably, such directions are sought invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case of P.R. Muralidharan and Others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 501], the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matter, observed thus:

“17. A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spit