SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Anilkumar G – Appellant
Versus
District Police Chief – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 18247 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Liju V.Stephen, Indu Susan Jacob, Taj K. Tom, Abhijith U.
For the Respondents: Jessy S Salim

The High Court holds that a lawfully operating institution is entitled to seek police protection from the state authorities if it faces obstruction, provided it holds all necessary governmental licenses and permissions.

Headnote:The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the official respondents to provide police protection for the smooth functioning of an educational institution, alleging interference by private respondents. The Court noted that the institution holds valid licenses and has been granted prior interim protection. The central issue pertains to the obligation of the state to provide police protection to institutions facing threats and obstruction. The Court reasoned that where an establishment is running with necessary legal permissions, it is entitled to police assistance to prevent obstruction and ensure law and order. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may lodge a complaint with the police authority if threats persist, and the authority shall thereafter provide necessary protective measures in accordance with the law.

Table of Content
1. establishing the court's jurisdiction to grant protection to lawful institutions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate police protection to petitioner and the students, and staff of M/s. Mothers Group of Institutions for attending their class and office in accordance with law.

ii) To issue such other appropriate Writ order or direction that may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 13.05.2025, this Court passed the following order:

“Admit.

2. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Issue urgent notice by speed post to respondents 4 to 8.

3. There will be an interim order directing the 3rd respondent to grant adequate protection to the petitioner, students and staff of his Institution for a period of one month.

Post on 13.06.2025.”

The above interim order is regularly extended. Even now service to respondents 4, 5 and 8 is not completed. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition need not be retained here indefinitely.

3. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Mothers Group of institutions, which conducts vocational training courses in Allied Health Science, IT and Management programs. According to the petitioner, he is running the said courses after securing all necessary license and permission from the statutory authorities. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is obstruction from respondents 4 to 8 to the smooth functioning of the institution. In such circumstances, this writ petition was filed and an interim order was passed on 13.05.2025. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner can be allowed to submit appropriate complaint before the 3rd respondent, if there is any threat from the party respondent in future. If such complaint is filed, the 3rd respondent will afford adequate protection to the petitioner’s institution for the smooth functioning of the same.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) If there is any threat to the smooth functioning of the petitioner’s institution, provided the petitioner is having all necessary licenses and permissions, the petitioner can approach the 3rd respondent with a complaint, and if such a complaint is received, the 3rd respondent will a adequate police protection for the smooth functioning of the petitioner’s institution, in accordance with the law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top