Disposed

Sankara Narayanan v. Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thrissur

Kerala HC5 Feb 2016WP(C)/39693/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection. It upheld an interim order for maintaining law and order, clarified that police must protect private respondents equally, and reserved issues regarding telecommunication facilities and assault allegations for competent jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Police to ensure law and order is maintained and threats to life are taken care of; issues regarding telecommunication facility and assaults left open.

Sankara Narayanan Vs Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/16TH MAGHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 39693 of 2015 (J) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SANKARA NARAYANAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.PADMAVATHI AMMA, PATTATHIL, KAIPPALI DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): -------------1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THRISSUR, PIN CODE - 680 003. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN CODE - 680 121. 3. BHARATHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, VADAKKOTTU VEEDU, ARIMBUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 620. 4. GOPINATHAN, AGED 64 YEARS, VADAKKOTTU VEEDU, ARIMBUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 620. 5. KAVITHA M.K., AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.BINU, PALLIPURATHUKARAN VEEDU, ARIMBUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 620.

¶9

6. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, NAYARUSSERY VEEDU, ARIMBUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 620. R3-6 BY ADV. SRI.YASH THOMAS MANNULLY R1 AND R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C).No. 39693 of 2015 (J)

¶12

APPENDIX

¶13

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶14

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RCEIPT DATED 22/01/2015. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 13/11/2015. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 28/10/2015 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RELIANCE EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/12/2015 ALONG WITH RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/12/2015 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶16

EXHIBIT R3(a): COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.11.2015 AND 15.12.2015 OF ARIMPUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶17

EXHIBIT R3(b): COPY OF MASS PETITION DATED 13.11.2015 SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶18

EXHIBIT R3(c): COPY OF LEAFLET PUBLISHED BY JANAKIYA SAMARA SAMITHI DATED 18.12.2015.

¶19

EXHIBIT R6(a): COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 27.1.2016 FROM MOTHER HOSPITAL, THRISSUR.

¶20

EXHIBIT R6(b): COPY OF FIR NUMBERED 206 DATED 28.1.2016 OF ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.

¶21

/TRUE COPY/

¶22

PS TO JUDGE

¶23

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶24

ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

¶25

W.P(C).39693 of 2015

¶26

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^rd February, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶29

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶30

“i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to afford effective and adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family so as to enable the petitioner to reside peacefully in his property;

¶31

ii) to pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶32

On 23.12.2015, the following interim order was issued:

¶33

“There will be an interim order that the Police will ensure that law and order is maintained and if there is any threat to the life of the petitioner, let any real apprehension in that regard be taken care of in accordance with law.”

¶34

Respondents 3 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit. They allege

¶35

that this writ petition is a camouflage aimed at securing the unlawful purpose of erecting or utilising a telecommunication facility without due sanction. The learned Senior Government Pleader points out that if the purpose is to have police protection in connection with the erection or utility for a telecommunication tower including a mobile tower, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to order police protection may not be exercised in view of the declaration of law by the Division Bench of this Court in Indus Towers Ltd. v. Sub Inspector of Police [2014(4) KLT 306].

¶36

¶37

WP(C).39693/15

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the effect that his close relatives were assaulted and certain crime cases were registered. That affidavit is yet to come on file. We take that submission as sufficient in view of what has been stated. Per contra , learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 submitted that some of the respondents and their relatives have also been assaulted. An affidavit has been filed by the 6^th respondent also. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that case and counter case have been registered by the jurisdictional Police in different instances between the parties to this writ petition.

¶39

Looking at the pleadings in the writ petition, there appears to be an interlink between the plea of the petitioner for police protection and the proposed utility of telecommunication facility including erection of a mobile tower, for which there appears to be some effort by the petitioner through one of the telecommunication companies. We do not go into that issue in view of our concurrence with the law declared by this Court in Indus Towers Ltd.'s case (supra) .

¶40

As directed in the interim order dated 23.12.2015, which is quoted above, all that is required at this point of time is to ensure that any threat to life is taken care of and law and order is maintained. Though the interim order was passed with regard to the life of the petitioner, we make it clear that the life is equally valuable to the

¶41

WP(C).39693/15 3

¶42

private respondents as well. Therefore, all that is required is that the Police officials will ensure that law and order is maintained and the commission or attempt to commit any cognizable offence is proceeded with in accordance with law. Preventive action as may be necessary on ground will also be resorted to, if it is deemed necessary in the wisdom of the Police officials having jurisdiction over the area. All issues between the petitioner and the private respondents touching the allegations in relation to the proposal for having a telecommunication facility or as regards the plea of assault etc. are left open for consideration and for adjudication, if necessary, in competent jurisdiction.

¶43

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶44

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

vgs6/1

Sankara Narayanan v. Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankara Narayanan v. Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nisheema Anulal Vs Kumari Kuriakose

Global United Shipping India Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax Division

Lfa, Tdb Audit, Tvm Vs Secretary, Tdb

M/S. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner,Commercial Taxes

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd Vs the State of Kerala

M/S Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala