Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37517
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.M.JOSEPH, K.HARILAL, JJ
SHAJI – Appellant
Versus
AMBIKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 18321/2012
A writ of mandamus is not maintainable in the absence of a formal demand for police protection, especially with ongoing legal challenges to prior judgments.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Petition for police protection - Judgments related to trespass and property rights - Writ jurisdiction - Finality of previous judgments
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, representing a temple management committee, sought police protection against alleged trespass and demolition attempts by certain respondents despite a prior court decree in their favor.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus for police protection against the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without a formal request for police protection and given the ongoing legal motions to set aside the judgment, the writ petition was not maintainable.
Final Decision: Writ Petition is closed.
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing respondents 6 and 7 to afford adequate police protection to Manjappara Siva Temple and its properties in the light of Ext.P3 judgment from respondents 1 to 5.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing respondents 6 and 7 to afford adequate police protection to the life of the petitioners from respondents 1 to 5.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
Petitioners claim to be the President and Secretary of Manjappara Siva Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi, Thekkada Village, Nedumangad Taluk. First respondent resides near the temple property. It is stated that the first respondent along with respondents 2 to 5 tried to trespass into the temple property and also tried to demolish the boundary wall of the temple. The petitioners and the Deity of the temple filed O.S.No.465/11 against the first respondent and it stands decreed. According to them, they have obtained Ext.P3 judgment, which is an ex parte judgment. Now, even if the judgment has become final, the party respondents are creating problems in violation of Ext.P3.
3. Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 1, 3 and 5. The fourth respondent has also filed Counter Affidavit.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader reiterates that no demand was made for police protection by the petitioners. On that short ground, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. We also notice the stand of the party respondents that they have filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. In such circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners and the Writ Petition is closed.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/=
K. HARILAL, JUDGE kbk.
//True Copy//
