Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the police to give her necessary protection to assume charge as receiver of a firm, on the strength of Ext.P10 order passed by the District Court, Thrissur and also to continue to discharge the functions of the receiver.

2. Thebrief facts of the case are the following: The petitioner is one of the partners of a firm called "Blissotel" at Thrissur. The said firm is running a hotel, which is having a bar licence, issued in the name of its Managing Partner. Disputes arose between her and the Managing Partner. The dispute between them concerning the sharing of the profits of the firm was referred for arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrators, by a majority, passed Ext.P8

award on 12.2007, permitting the petitioner to realize an amount of Rs.3,49,440/- from the 1st respondent Managing Partner and his assets, as share of profits from the bar hotel for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The amount was to carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of award till realization. A correction was made in the award as per Ext.P9 dated 23.2008. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner moved the District Court, Thrissur, by filing Arb.(O.P.) No.188/2007, praying to appoint a receiver to manage the bar hotel. The said application was allowed by Ext.P10 order dated 23.2008, by appointing the petitioner and the 1st respondent as joint receivers for running the business of the partnership firm called "Blissotel", till the valid dissolution of the firm or till the arbitration award is enforced under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whichever is earlier.

3. Thepetitioner submits, on the strength of Ext.P10 order, she went to the hotel to take charge as joint receiver. But, she was prevented from taking charge by the employees of the hotel and the 1st respondent abstained from the hotel whenever she went there as the receiver appointed by the court. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner sought the assistance of the police to assume charge and enforce Ext.P10 order of the court. Ext.P11 is the petition filed by her on 9.4.2008, requesting police assistance.

4. Challenging Ext.P10 order, the 1st respondent filed Arb. Appeal No.12/2008 before this Court. Though, the appeal was admitted, no interim order was passed by this Court in the said appeal. Challenging the award of the arbitrators, Arb.O.P. No.32/2008 was filed by the 1st respondent before the District Court, Thrissur. In the said Arb.O.P., the District Court has passed an interim order, staying the realization of the amount awarded to the petitioner in the arbitration award. The petitioner submits, she has no remedy for enforcement of Ext.P10 under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.. So, she submits, she is entitled to get the assistance of the police to enforce that order.

5. Weheard the learned counsel Mr. George Poonthottam for the petitioner. The petitioner has tried to advance a new proposition in law that as she has no other remedy under law, this Court must order the police to help her, so that Ext.P10 can be enforced. This Court, in this "police protection jurisdiction", is exercising the power of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus. When the police have a duty under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or the Kerala Police Act or any other statute and they do not discharge the same, this Court will step in and ask the police to discharge their duty, provided the motion before this Court is made by a person having a legal right to the performance of that duty by the police. In this case, the petitioner submits, she has no other remedy under law to enforce Ext.P10. Therefore, she has decided to walk into the nearby Police Station, seeking their help.

6. No statutory provision has been brought to our notice which authorizes the police to help the petitione