Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 51
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
S. Iqbal and Others
Versus
Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Chennai & Others
W.P. (MD) No. 12466 of 2010 and M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2010
Decided On :Decided On : 05-01-2011
For he Petitioners:P. Pethu Rajesh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.C. Herold Singh, Government Advocate.
The duty of the police and revenue administration to prevent excommunication and similar acts, as emphasized by the court.
Headnote:
mandamus - excommunication - Kattapanchayats - [K. Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others(2005) 3 MLJ 456 : 2005 (3) Law Weekly 298] - The court directed action against those responsible for excommunication and emphasized the duty of the police and revenue administration to prevent such acts, citing the condemnation of Kattapanchayats and unlawful decrees of excommunication in a previous case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, members of a Muslim Jamath, were excommunicated by the respondents and faced difficulties, leading to a petition for police action and protection. The police failed to take action despite a court order, and the respondents denied the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were indeed excommunicated, as confirmed by a police report. It emphasized the duty of the police and revenue administration to prevent such acts and provide protection to citizens.
Issues: Excommunication, police inaction, duty of police and revenue administration
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the police and revenue administration to prevent excommunication and similar acts, citing a previous case's condemnation of Kattapanchayats and unlawful decrees of excommunication.
Final Decision: The court directed action against those responsible for excommunication and emphasized the duty of the police and revenue administration to prevent such acts, ultimately disposing of the writ petition with the above direction.
1. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the police to investigate and take necessary action to prevent the act of excommunication done by the respondents 5 to 7 and to direct the first respondent to monitor the process of investigation, besides provide them police protection for their peaceful living in the locality.
The Facts:
2. The petitioners are residents of Keelasirupothu Village in the District of Ramanathapuram and they are the members of Keelasirupothu Muslim Sunnath Jamath Pallivaasal. The second petitioner was the President of the Jamath for a period of 23 years.
3. While the matters stood thus, the respondents 5 to 7 and their supporters excommunicated the petitioners and this resulted in constructing a trust building by them for the purpose of offering prayers. The respondents 5 to 7 demanded transfer of property of the second petitioner without offering sale consideration by arranging Kattapanchayat and stating that they have detected certain malpractices committed by him while he was administering the Jamath. The local Sub-Inspector of Police was also instrumental in achieving this purpose by the respondents 5 to 7.
4. The petitioners were prevented from entering the mosque and the respondents 5 to 7 warned others living in the Village against moving with the petitioners. In short, the petitioners were excommunicated and they were not permitted to live in the village which made them to shift their residence temporarily. Though several complaints were preferred before the Police, there was no follow up action and the same resulted in filing a petition before this Court in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 9179 of 2008, praying for a direction to take action against the respondents 5 to 7. This Court as per order dated 14.9.2009 directed the second respondent to take appropriate action on the basis of the complaint preferred by the petitioners on 8.7.2009. Accordingly, the Police registered a case in Crime No. 8 of 2010 on the file of the Illanjempur Police Station. However, FIR was kept in cold, storage and no further action was taken to proceed against respondents 5 to 7. This made the petitioners to file the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for issuance of appropriate direction to the police.
5. The Sub Inspector of Police, Illanjembur Police Station/fourth respondent herein filed a counter in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. According to the fourth respondent, the second petitioner was the President of the Jamath for more than 23 years and he was alleged to have involved in misappropriation of Jamath funds and as such, he was constrained to resign from the office and this only resulted in filing complaints against the other members of the Jamath. The case registered on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioners was investigated and found that it was a false case and as such a report was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate on 5.10.2010. The fourth respondent further contended that the allegation of excommunication was an afterthought and it was made only to circumvent the allegation of misappropriation and falsification of Jamath funds and accounts and to escape from the clutches of law.
Submissions:
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were excommunicated from the village and the same is evident from the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District to the District Superintendent of Police with reference to the proceedings dated 29.8.2006. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner ‘ s were put to difficulties at the instance of respondents 5 to 7 and their henchmen and they were subjected to excommunication. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for an order to take action against the respondents 5 to 7 and a direction to the police to give protection to the petitioners and their family members so as to enable them to live peacefully in the village
