Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, M.C.HARI RANI, JJ
SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM – Appellant
Versus
SURENDRA PANICKER – Respondent
WP(C)/28278/2008
Mandamus - Administrative Law - Civil Procedure Code - Sections Involved - The court evaluated the enforceability of interim injunction orders and the role of law enforcement in ensuring compliance, concluding that mere apprehension of violation without concrete evidence does not warrant extraordinary relief.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, as Administrator of a temple, faced obstruction from local members and sought an interim injunction, which was later granted, allowing him to request police assistance for enforcement. Despite his repeated requests for protection, the police were said to have acted lawfully without violating the court's orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no evidence of actual violation of the civil court's orders, only the petitioner's apprehensions. It determined that the police were under no obligation to act on mere feelings of insecurity from the petitioner without evidence of a breach.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to police protection based solely on perceived threats without evidence of actual interference with the court order.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner must demonstrate actual violations or interference for police protection to be mandated; mere apprehensions are insufficient grounds for extraordinary judicial relief.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to future rights of the petitioner.
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is the Administrator of a branch of SNDP Yogam at Valiyakulam at Ranny. Respondents 1 to 10 are local people and members of the Yogam. Since they caused obstruction to the functioning of the petitioner as the Administrator of the Yogam, he filed O.S.No.157/08 before the Munsiff's Court, Ranny. His application for interim injunction was declined by the said court. Therefore, the petitioner moved the appellate court. The said appeal was allowed by Exhibit P1 order in C.M.A.No.43/2008 dated 14.7.2008. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
“ In the result, the C.M.A. is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Munsiff in I.A.291/2008 in O.S.157/2008 in part, restraining the defendants from effecting any further construction in the plaint schedule property without the written consent of the plaintiff. Further, they are restrained from interfering with the administration of the temple by the plaintiff. So also they are restrained from conducting any special poojas without W.P.(C)No.28278/08 -2-
the written consent of the plaintiff, represented by the administrative committee, chairman, P.R.Ajayakumar. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case both parties are directed to bear their respective costs.”
The petitioner, thereafter, moved the Munsiff's Court seeking necessary police assistance to enforce the said order. The said I.A. was allowed by Exhibit P2 order dated 6.9.2008. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
“ In the result, this I.A. is allowed. The C.I. of Police, Ranny is directed to provide necessary police assistance to the plaintiff for the functioning of the temple and to enforce the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Addl.District Court in C.M.A.43/2008. No order as to costs.”
On the next day itself, the petitioner filed Exhibit P3 petition before the Circle Inspector of Police, Ranny, the 11th respondent herein. In the said representation at paragraph 2, he has stated that he is apprehending that the party respondents may interfere with his functioning as Administrator. They have interfered with the same earlier and therefore he prayed for extending necessary protection to him in terms of Exhibit P2 order. He filed Exhibit P4 representation again before the Circle Inspector of Police on 18.9.2008. The apprehension voiced by him in Exhibit P3 was W.P.(C)No.28278/08 -3-
repeated in Exhibit P4 also. It was followed by Exhibit P5 representation before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla on 19.9.2008. In that representation also, he pointed out his apprehension regarding the interference by the party respondents in his functioning as Administrator. Alleging that respondents 11 to 13 did not extend any protection to him on the basis of the request made by him in those representations, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs.
“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 12th and 13th respondents to grant adequate and effective protection to the petitioner as directed by the civil court in Exhibit P2 order.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 13th respondent to take appropriate proceedings against the 11th respondent for not obeying the court order in its corrective perspective.”
2. The 11th respondent has filed a statement denying the allegations of the petitioner. According to the said respondent, the party respondents have not violated the orders of the civil court. They were summoned and appraised of the situation arising out of the order of the civil court. They are law abiding citizens and have not tried to disobey the orders of the court.
W.P.(C)No.28278/08 -4-
3. Respondents 1 to 10 have filed a counter affidavit. They also denied the allegations of the petitioner in the Writ Petition that they have violated the directions of the civil court. They also pointed out that the petitio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
