Court reaffirmed the police's duty to maintain law and order without interfering in private civil rights.

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2025 Nitin Jamdar, C. J.

Heard Mr. P. M. Joshi, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Vijay Sankar V. H., learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, Mr. Peeyus A. Kottam, learned counsel for Respondent No. 7, Mr. Georgie Johny, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority, and Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader.

2. Pursuant to the earlier direction, the Station House Officer has filed an affidavit dated 25 October 2025, wherein it is stated in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 as under:-

“5. It is submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition the Ext. P5 complaint has been forwarded to this respondent for investigation by the DySP, Muvattupuzha. Thereafter, the petitioner was summoned and his statement was recorded. Based on the statement, Cr. No.379/2024 of Oonnukal Police Station was registered on 08.07.2024 under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bhratiya Nyaya Sanhita. Thereupon, investigation was conducted and it was revealed that the incident as narrated by the petitioner has not taken place and therefore final report was submitted on 31.08.2024 before the jurisdictional Magistrate to treat the case as false.

6. It is submitted that as stated above, the main opposition of the persons of locality is that, by conduct of quarrying and its allied activities as well as conduct of vibration study, serious damage would be caused to the water tank maintained by the Kerala Water Authority which is the only source of supply of potable water. At present, there is no law and order situation in the area and the Police is having constant vigil and is carrying out patrolling activities. However, from the information gathered, it is understood that if the preparatory works prior to quarrying activities undertaken without allaying the apprehensions of the persons of the locality, a law and order situation may erupt in the area. It is also humbly submitted that this respondent is ready and willing to abide by any directions of this Hon’ble Court.”

3. The issue appears to relate to quarrying activities sought to be conducted by the Original Petitioner / Respondent No. 1. The Appellant is a resident of the area. It is a settled position that when direction to the Police authorities for Police protection is sought in a writ jurisdiction, what is of primary importance is the likelihood of a law and order situation. Under the guise of such a relief, the writ petitioner cannot call upon the court to decide the inter se civil rights between private parties.

4. Therefore, in view of the affidavit filed by the Police Authorities stating that they are keeping a vigil, it is not necessary to issue any specific direction, as it is the statutory duty of the Police Authorities to maintain law and order. The impugned judgment shall neither confer any special rights on the Original Petitioner to override any position of law nor bind any statutory authorities in the exercise of their duties. At the same time, no private person shall take the law into their own hands.

5. In view of the statement filed by the Police Authorities, and with the above clarifications, and substituting the impugned judgment accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.