Mrs. Alarmel Valli vs The Superintendent of Police and The Inspector of Police

K.K. Sasidharan, J.

PRELIMINARY:

The failure on the part of the Respondents to grant necessary police protection to the Petitioner to construct a compound wall to her property

situated at Kodaikanal compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court.

BACKGROUND FACTS:

The Petitioner is a renowned dancer. The Government of India in recognition of her service awarded her the title ""Padmasri and Padmabhusan

sequentially. The Petitioner has been teaching the art of dance both in India and abroad.

The property in T.S. Nos. 35,36,37 in Block No. 19, Ward No. C, within the jurisdiction of Kodaikanal Municipality originally belonged to the

grandfather of the Petitioner by name Shri. Arunachala Mudaliar. The property ultimately devolved on the Petitioner being the legal heir of her

deceased father Shri. C. Muthukumaraswamy, who died in the year 2002.

The Petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire property measuring about 31/2 acres.

The Petitioner made arrangements to run a dance school in the name and style of ""Dipasikha"", as it was her desire to teach dance and music to

the local youngsters, regardless of their family background. Therefore, she approached the official Surveyor and on payment of prescribed fee, the

property was measured. Accordingly, she commenced fencing.

While she was in the process of fencing, certain miscreants forcibly halted the fencing work and threatened the Supervisor and employees of the

Petitioner to stop work. Since the demand was unjustifiable, the Petitioner approached the police to give protection so as to enable her to

complete the work. However, there was no follow-up action at the instance of the police. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to file the Writ

Petition.

Even though sufficient opportunity was granted to the Respondents to file their counter, they have not filed their response.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

ANALYSIS:

The documents produced by the Petitioner clearly indicates her right, title, interest and possession in respect of the subject property. The sketch

of the property shows that it has got well defined boundaries. The Petitioner has already measured her property through the Town Surveyor. The

certificate issued by the Town Surveyor dated 27.10.2009 shows that the revenue records stood in the name of her father and it was measured by

the officials. In short, the Town Surveyor certified the possession and enjoyment of the property by Thiru. C. Muthukumaraswamy, predecessor-

in-interest of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner got every right to construct a compound wall to her property. It was only in exercise of her right to protect her property, she

made arrangements to construct the compound wall. When it was made out that certain persons with evil intention to grab the property, resisted

the attempt, the Petitioner made a complaint before the Respondents. However, the police were too busy with other issues to bother about the

legitimate grievance expressed by a citizen failed to take any kind of action. In short, the grievance of the Petitioner fell on deaf ears.

The request of the Petitioner was nothing but a legitimate one. She wanted the police to take action against the miscreants, who were

instrumental in stopping her construction of compound wall. In case the police fail to take action and to give protection to a law abiding citizen, in

the ultimate analysis, the very society suffers and the criminal gets encouragement.

The police have no case that the Petitioner has no title, interest or possession in respect of the subject property. In fact, they have not

conducted any enquiry with regard to the complaint preferred by the Petitioner. The inaction on the part of the police compelled a renowned

dancer to approach this Court.

The police power, in fact, is nothing but a duty to the members of public. Therefore, the police was expected to exercise the powers, when the

jurisdictional facts exists for such exercise. It is said that the discretion becomes a duty, when the beneficial brings hope the circumstances for its

benign exercise.

When people take law into their own hands and prevent the citizen from enjoying property rights, necessarily the police should come to the

rescue of such law abiding citizen. By giving assistance to a citizen, they are not doing any charity. It is essentially a service. After all, the

Respondents are only Government Servants.

Therefore, I am of the view that the matter requires emergent consideration by the first Respondent.

RELIEF:

The Petitioner is given liberty to make an application before the first Respondent for police protection and in the event of making any such

application, the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul is directed to consider the same on merits and provide necessary police protection at the

expense of the Petitioner forthwith.

In the upshot, I allow the Writ Petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

CONCLUDING REMARKS:

Before I conclude, it is appropriate to quote the following observation of Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs.

Vardichan and Others, :

...The pressure of the judicial process, expensive and dilatory, is neither necessary nor desirable if responsible bodies are responsive to

duties....