A writ of mandamus for police protection may be denied where internal institutional disputes and pending criminal cases against the petitioner exist.

ORDER

The petitioner/Correspondent of Vysya College, Ayodhyapattinam, Salem sent a representation dated 03.03.2026 seeking police protection and expressed willingness to pay the necessary charges.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is aged about 78 years and is serving as the Correspondent of the College. The petitioner had undergone spinal surgery and has now recovered. Earlier, the petitioner had taken action against one Venkatesan, the Principal of the College, for alleged misappropriation, and also against one Sivanantham. Thereafter, they allegedly started causing trouble to the petitioner. Despite the removal of Venkatesan from the post of Principal, he has allegedly refused to vacate the office premises. Consequently, the petitioner had approached this Court and obtained appropriate orders. According to the petitioner, rowdy elements were engaged by the said Venkatesan and Sivanantham, and they have allegedly been threatening the petitioner’s life. Hence, the petitioner sought police protection.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that two FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. One is in Crime No.75 of 2026 dated 28.02.2026 for offences under Sections 296(b), 316(4), and 318(3) of the BNS, based on a complaint given by one Sivanantham, the President of the College. Another case in Crime No.112 of 2026 was registered on 08.04.2026 for offences under Sections 196(2), 296(b), and 351(2) IPC based on a complaint lodged by Meyyazhagan, a Professor of the College. Since two FIRs are pending against the petitioner, police protection cannot be granted.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said complaints were generated only because the petitioner sought police protection. However, it is seen that one of the complaints had been lodged much prior to the petitioner’s representation seeking protection.

5. Further, it appears that there is an internal dispute within the management of the College. In such circumstances, granting armed police protection to the petitioner would send a wrong message and may further disturb the already uneasy atmosphere prevailing in the College.

6. Considering the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that two criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and that there has been a long-standing dispute within the College management involving the Principal and Registrars. Though the petitioner is the Correspondent of the College, one group is opposed to him. In view of the above circumstances, no dedicated armed police personnel can be deputed for the petitioner’s security. However, if the petitioner faces any specific threat from any particular person or in relation to any specific incident, he is at liberty to lodge a complaint before the third respondent, who shall consider the same, conduct an enquiry, and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.