2006 Supreme(SC) 229

2006(3) Supreme 170
Supreme Court of India
(From Kerala High Court)
S.B. Sinha and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
P.R. Murlidharan & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Swami Dharamanda Theertha Padar & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1634 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22268 of 2004)
Decided on 10-3-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advocate, S. Sukumaran, Alam Gir, A. Deb Kumar and Rauf Rahim, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K. Radhakrishna, Sr. Advocate, Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, for M/s. Lawyer’s Knit & Co., Advocates.
For the Applicant : P. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Advocate, Kulbhushan Arora, K. Rajeev, Ramesh Babu M.R. (N.P.) and R. Sathish, Advocates.

Important PointJurisdiction of writ Court is wide while granting relief to a citizen so as to protect his life and liberty as adumbrated under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India but it could not collaterally go into that question determination whereof would be beyond its domain.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Art. 226—Writ petition praying police protection in discharge of duties of office of Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan claimed to have been held by petitioner—High Court allowed writ holding that State got a legal obligation to give protection to life and properties of petitioner in light of Art. 21 of the Constitution—Appeal—High Court determined the contentious issues which were required to be proved in terms of Evidence Act—Respondent who sought to claim a status was required to establish same in Court of law—Qualification of respondent to hold office was in question— Impugned judgment could not be sustained.

       Held : It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so is open to question. A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which was beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact. The respondent no. 1 who sought to claim a status was required to establish the same in a court of law in an appropriate proceeding. He for one reason or the other, failed to do so. The provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stares on his face. He, therefore, could not have filed a writ petition for getting the self same issues determined in his favour which he could not do even by filing a suit. Indeed the jurisdiction of the writ court is wide while granting relief to a citizen of India so as to protect his life and liberty as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but while doing so it could not collaterally go into that question, determination whereof would undoubtedly be beyond its domain. What was necessary for determination of the question arising in the writ petition was not the interpretation of the document alone, but it required adduction of oral evidence as well. Such evidence was necessary for the purpose of explaining the true nature of the deed of trust, as also the practice followed by this trust. In any event, the impleading applicant herein, as noticed hereinbefore, has raised a contention that he alone was ordained to hold the said office as per the bye-laws of the trust. The qualification of the first respondent to hold the office was also in question. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that such disputed questions could not have been gone into by the High Court in a writ proceeding. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is wide and plenary. In a case of this nature, a writ proceeding cannot be a substitute for a civil suit. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. However, in the event, the first respondent feels that he as a person should receive protection to his life he may make an appropriate representation to the Superintendent of Police who after causing an inquiry made in this behalf may pass an appropriate order as is permissible in law. (Paras 11 to 13)

       As per Balasubramanyan, J.

       Held : A writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to the person of a Writ Petitioner can be issued, when the court is satisfied that there is a threat to his person and the authorities have failed to perform their duties and it is different from granting relief for the first time to a person either to allegedly protect his right to property or his right to an office, especially when the pleadings themselves disclose that disputed questions are involved. My learned Brother has rightly pointed out that the High Court was in error in proceeding to adjudicate on the rights and obligations arising out of the trust deed merely based on the affidavits and the deed itself. I fully agree with my learned Brother that the High Court should not have undertaken such an exercise on the basis that the right of the Writ Petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is sought to be affected by the actions of the contesting respondents and their supporters and that can be prevented by the issue of the writ of mandamus prayed for. A writ for "police protection" so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order. (Paras 3 and 4)