Shamsudheen vs The Superintendent of Police and Others

K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and sufficient police protection for the General Body meeting of the Thattamala Muslim Jama-Ath Committee represented by the petitioner which is scheduled on 12.11.2010 and ensure peace, law and order in the locality.

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ist respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P2 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and see that no law and order situation is created in the area.

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the Secretary of Thattamala Jama-Ath, a registered organisation. There are complaints against the 9th respondent. Removal of 9th respondent is sought. The General Body was scheduled to be held on 5.11.2010 as notified by the petitioner. Petitioner sought police protection before the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P1. The meeting was convened on 5.11.2010. But, since respondents 2 and 3 had not provided any safeguards, respondents 4 to 8 at the instance of the 9th respondent brought some outside antisocial elements inside the meeting hall and created a fearsome atmosphere there. The General Body is now proposed to be held on 12.11.2010. Petitioner filed representation seeking protection.

A counter affidavit is filed by the party respondents. In the counter affidavit it is inter alia stated that order of injunction has been granted by the civil Court against removal of any staff for ten days.

We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the party respondents and also the learned Government Pleader.

Of course, it is true that the 5th respondent is one of the plaintiffs and the petitioner at whose instance the interim injunction is granted. It is pointed out that the order is obtained after the filing of the writ petition and notice is received. Learned Counsel for the party respondents points out that the suit is filed on 10.11.2010 and there are other plaintiffs apart from the 5th respondent in the suit. The fact of the matter is now there is an order of injunction passed by the civil Court for ten days. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the injunction is only against removal and meeting can go on. He would also submit that 300 members requisitioned urgent meeting and there will be law and order situation. We would not think that it will be a proper exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief.

Learned Government Pleader would submit that there are disputes between the parties and police have made necessary arrangements to avoid the law and order situation.

We do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for granting protection in exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case. The writ petition fails, and it is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek remedies in appropriate Court/forum.