AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—The dispute in respect of partition of certain properties led the parties in filing a civil suit, which led to the filing of Second
Appeal in S.A. No. 2060 of 1984. The Appellants in both the writ appeals filed Crl.O.P. No. 6877 of 2007 seeking for a direction to the
Respondents 2 to 4 herein to give sufficient police protection to the Appellants to possess and enjoy the property of the 1st Appellant in W.A.
(MD) No. 789 of 2008 in Arumanai Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. In the said Cr.O.P., on 21.07.2007, the following order
was passed:
Hence, in these facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the ownership or right of the Petitioners over that property and declaring the
right of the Petitioners over that property, I would like to pass the following direction:
Let the Petitioners within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order appear before the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari
District, and air their grievance, thereupon the Superintendent of Police shall look into it and on merits arrange for police protection to the persons
of the Petitioners when they go to such property at Arumanai for which the Petitioners also agree to bear the necessary police protection expenses
as per rules governing the same.
Based on the above direction in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 6877 of 2007, the 2nd Respondent herein has passed orders in Memo C. No.
C1/3590/2008, dated 05.05.2008, instructing the 3rd Respondent, the Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, to provide police protection
to the 1st Appellant in W.A.(MD) No. 789 of 2008, namely K. Chellan, to avert any law and order problem. Challenging the said order of the
2nd Respondent giving instruction to the 3rd Respondent to police protection to the said K. Chellan, the 1st Respondent herein filed W.P.(MD)
No. 9084 of 2008. After hearing the counsel for the 1st Respondent/writ Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for Respondents 2 to
4, by order dated 06.11.2008, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following observation.
I make it clear that the said memo dated 05.05.2008 shall not be construed by the police officials compelling them to provide police protection
to the properties of the Respondents 4 and 5. In my earlier order, it has been made very clear that the police cannot decide the title or possession
in favour of any one of the persons and it is for the parties to approach the civil Court in that connection.
Stating that they were not heard before disposing of the writ petition, the Appellants have filed M.P.(MD) No. 3 of 2008 in W.P.(MD) No.
9084 of 2008 for recalling the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.11.2008. They have also filed M.P.(MD) No. 4 of 2008 in W.P.(MD)
No. 9084 of 2008 for staying the order dated 06.11.2010. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 27.11.2008, made it clear that the memo,
dated 05.05.2008, issued by the Superintendent of Police, is only meant for protecting the person viz., K. Chellan, the 1st Appellant in W.A.(MD)
No. 789 of 2008. While considering the miscellaneous petitions, recording the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants, the learned
Single Judge has observed as under:
The said memo issued by the Superintendent of Police is meant for protecting the person viz., K. Chellan.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Respondents 4 and 5 made a submission to the effect that it is not the intention of the
Petitioners/Respondents 4 and 5 to misinterpret the earlier order passed by this Court dated 21.07.2007, which was one for protecting the person
of K. Chellan and not to protect any property.
Pointing out that since the Appellants have no intention to misinterpret the order dated 21.07.2007, the learned Single Judge has closed M.P.
(MD)Nos.3 and 4 of 2008 observing that no more elaboration was required for the police to have clear idea about the purport of the earlier order
dated 21.07.2007.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 06.11.2008, made in W.P.(MD) No. 9084 of 2008, the Appellants have filed W.A.
(MD) No. 788 of 2008 and they have also preferred W.A.(MD) No. 789 of 2010 against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated
27.11.2008, made in M.P.(MD)Nos.3 and 4 of 2008 in W.P.(MD) No. 9084 of 2008.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 2 to 4 as well
as the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent.
Having regard to the order passed in Cr.O.P.(MD) No. 6877 of 2007, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge has rightly interpreted
the order. In view of the clear order passed by the learned Single Judge, both in the writ petition as well as in the miscellaneous petitions, we do
not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
However, the learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that based upon the order of the learned Single Judge, the police protection
given to the 1st Appellant in W.A.(MD) No. 789 of 2008, namely K. Chellan, was withdrawn. If that be so, it is open to the 1st Appellant W.A.
(MD) No. 789 of 2008 to file fresh application before the 2nd Respondent, the Superintendent of Police, who shall consider the same
independently as to whether the said K. Chellan continues to require any police protection or not. The 2nd Respondent is at liberty to pass any
order considering the ground realities on date and whether any such protection to the 1st Appellant in W.A.(MD) No. 789 of 2008 is necessary at
all.
With the above observation, both the writ appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2008 in W.A.(MD)
No. 788 of 2008 is also dismissed.