Police protection under writ jurisdiction requires clear evidence of a law and order threat; civil disputes must be resolved in civil courts, not through police intervention.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

1. By these appeals filed under Section 5 of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, the Appellants have challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5 October 2023 in W.P.(C) No.22946 of 2023 directing the police authorities to provide police protection to the Original Petitioners to close down the gate in the subject property.

2. The Appellants in W.A. No.1866 of 2023 are Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and the Appellant in W.A. No.2086 of 2023 is Respondent No. 5 in W.P.(C) No.22946 of 2023. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the children of Respondent No. 3. The writ petition was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Original Petitioners.

3. The Petitioners filed the writ petition stating that the Appellants are preventing the Petitioners from enjoying their property, obstructing the closing of the gate, and threatening them. Therefore, they approached the Respondent – police authorities with a complaint and since no action was taken, a writ of mandamus was sought against the Respondent – police authorities, directing them to provide effective police protection to the Petitioners to ensure their peaceful enjoyment of the property, to close and lock the gate.

4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition and directed the police authorities to provide adequate and effective police protection to the Petitioners for closing the gate on the eastern side of the disputed way in question, which was the subject matter of the civil suit, O.S. No.190 of 2013 on the file of the First Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Being aggrieved, the Appellants are before this Court with these appeals.

5. We have heard Mr. C. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the Appellants in W.A. No.1866 of 2023, Mr. K. S. Frijo, learned counsel for the Appellant in W.A. No.2086 of 2023, Mr. Santhosh Mathew, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. A. A. Mohammed Nazir, learned counsel for the Respondents/Original Petitioners, and Dr. Thushara James, learned Senior Government Pleader.

6. The main contention raised by the Appellants is that by directing police protection to lock the gate, the learned Single Judge entered into the civil dispute between the parties, and the remedy of the Petitioners was to approach the civil court. It was contended that, in fact, the Petitioners had sought similar reliefs in their counter-claim in O.S. No.190 of 2013, which was dismissed by the Additional Munsiff Court and against the said dismissal, no appeal was preferred by the Petitioners. It was contended that a relief specifically declined by the civil court cannot be sought indirectly by seeking police protection. It was contended that if at all there is any injunction, the civil court also has the power to enforce its own order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with police aid and there was no law and order situation. Therefore, a writ of mandamus ought not to have been issued.

7. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Original Petitioners contended that there is no bar to the issue of a writ of mandamus even in a dispute of a civil nature, and that the Petitioners need not be relegated to the remedy before the civil court. He relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I. of Police, Angamali Police Station, 2010 (2) KHC 445 (FB). He contended that the Appellants had specifically sought to establish their right of ease