G. Krishnan vs The Superintendent of Police, Madurai-7 and Others

Bakthavatsalam, J.—The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:

...to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to afford police protection to the petitioner with respect to his enjoyment of the

lands comprised in S.No.314/4 and 314/8 admeasuring 1.86 in Kallanai village, Vadipatty taluk to peaceful harvest standing sugarcane crop and

continue peaceful cultivation of the said land without the intervention of the fourth respondent and her supporters and to institute appropriate

criminal proceedings against fourth respondent herein on the complaints so far submitted by the petitioner from time to time and issue such further

or other direction....

The petitioner earlier came before this Court by way of a civil revision petition against the order of the trial court refusing to order police

protection and for appropriate direction to see that the order of injunction passed in I.A.No.206 of 1990 is not violated and Srinivasan, J.,

dismissed the said civil revision petition in C.R.P.No.2853/1990 and the said Judgment is reported in G. Krishnan v. Smt. Thulasi Ammal 1991 1

L.W. 513. While disposing of the Civil Revision petition, the learned Judge considered the question whether the petitioner could move this court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to get the police protection to see that the order of injunction passed in I.A.No.206 of 1990 is not

violated. At that stage, C.M.A.No.41 of 1990 was pending before the learned District Judge, Madurai which has been withdrawn now it is stated

in the Bar.

After hearing Mr. E. Padmanaban, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Venkatraman, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and

Mr. P. Gunaraj, Additional Government Pleader (Writs) for respondents 1 to 3 and after going through the judgment of Srinivasan, J., which is

reported in G. Krishnan v. Smt. Thulasi ammal 1991 1 L.W. 543, I feel that certain facts of the case need be mentioned.

Here is a case where an injunction has been obtained by the petitioner in a Civil suit filed by him in O.S.No.393 of 1990 on the file of the

District Munsif''s Court, Madurai for a permanent injunction restraining the 4th respondent from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of

the Petitioner of the suit land and an interim order of injunction was granted in I.A.No.206/1990 in O.S.No.393/1990 on 29.3.1990 after contest

and it had become final. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached, respondents 1 to 3 and has petitioned them regularly right from

December 1989 and the latest petition being 20.3.1991. It is seen that the petitioner has submitted a petition to the Inspector General of Police,

Madras on 21.3.1990. The complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of various petitions filed by him, respondents 1 to 3 had not registered any

case against the 4th respondent, nor investigation was taken up or protection given to the petitioner. It is also stated that since the petitioner has got

an order of injunction from a civil court, respondents 1 to 3 have got a duty to give effect to that order and protection asked for ought to have been

given to the petitioner.

This question has been decided by this Court and the dictum of Lord Denning. M.R. in R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1968 I All E.R.

763 has been applied. The observations of Lord Denning in the said case is as follows:

I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as it is of every Chief Constable, to enforce the law of the land... In all these cases, he is not

the servant of anyone, save of the law itself.... The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone.

In A.S.C. Varadachariar v. The Commissioner of Police Egmore, Madras and Others 1969 II M.L.J. 1 the writ petitioner prayed for issue of writ

of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Police, Madras to secure to him peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the property by removing the

persons who were unlawfully remaining on the property and the Commissioner of Police raised the plea that it was within his discretion to decide

whether police action was necessary, and if so, what action should be taken and his contention was repelled by this Court and it was held that the

duty of the Commissioner of Police was to determine whether the continued presence of the hut dwellers amounted to criminal trespass and if he

came to that conclusion, the Commissioner should evict the trespassers and give protection to the petitioner. In a similar case in Satyanarayana

Tiwari Vs. S.H.O.P.S. Santhoshanagar, Hyderabad and Others, Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying upon the judgment of

Lord Denning cited supra, allowed a writ appeal directed against the dismissal of a writ petition for issue of mandamus against the police officers to

render police help in maintaining the petitioner''s possession of certain lands. In view of the settled position of law, which has been set out by

Srinivasan, J., in his judgment reported in G. Krishnan v. Smt. Thulasi Ammal 1991 1 L.W. 513 I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is

entitled to a writ as prayed for. So far as the petitioner has got an order of injunction granted in his favour by a civil court having jurisdiction and

that has been produced before respondents 1 to 3, in my view, respondents 1 to 3 have got a duty to see that the petitioner enjoys the property

peacefully. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, a direction to issue to respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitions filed by the

petitioner on various dates and take appropriate stops to protect the rights of the petitioner and enforce the order of injunction in such a way that

the said order of injunction granted by a court of law in I.A.No.206 of 1990 in O.S.No. 393/1990 is respected. Even if there is no application

pending before respondents 1 to 3, as and when the petitioner makes an application based on the order of injunction granted in his favour

I.A.No.206/1990 in O.S.No.393/1990 D.M.C. Madurai, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to take appropriate action according to law on the

application so that the petitioner can have the benefit of the order of injunction obtained by him in a civil court. The writ petition is allowed. No

costs.