Mathew Thomas vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of 171.6 Ares of Nilam in Sy.Nos.529/9, 530/4.1, 530/4.0 and 530/4.2 of Thalavady Village in Alappuzha District, which is being cultivated with paddy, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 4 to provide adequate and sufficient police protection for harvesting paddy in the Nilam of the petitioner and allow him to take grains to his residence in the harvesting machine. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 and 4 to take immediate and effective steps/action pursuant to Ext.P1, in accordance with law. In the writ petition it is alleged that respondents 5 and 6 and their supporters are threatening the petitioner by saying that they will not allow the petitioner to take grains to his residence in case harvester is used for harvesting in the petitioner's nilam. The petitioner submitted Exts.P1 complaint dated 05.03.2021 before the 4th respondent and P2 complaint dated 12.03.2021 before the 3rd respondent seeking police protection, and thereafter filed this writ petition before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

On 26.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 4. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 5 and 6, returnable by this date. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 5 and 6.

The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law.

Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus;

"In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice.

The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants."

In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary [(2014) 2 SCC 532] the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470].

During the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the 4th respondent Station House Officer, would submit that on receipt of Ext.P2 complaint, the office bearers of respondents 5 and 6 were summoned to the police station, who have given a written undertaking, on 28.03.2021, that the members of the 5th respondent or the 6th respondent Unions will cause no obstruction whatsoever to the harvesting of paddy in the petitioner's property with harvester and transportation of grains to his residence in the harvester. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 4th respondent Station House Officer to take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the time of harvesting in the petitioner's paddy land in Sy.Nos.529/9, 530/4.1, 530/4.0 and 530/4.2 of Thalavady Village in Alappuzha District, using harvester and transportation of grains to the residence of the petitioner in the harvester.