Disposed

Sunny K.P. v. the Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC2 Mar 2021WP(C)/3594/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection for cutting rubber trees on disputed land directed at the petitioner and his workers. The petitioners alleged obstruction and threats from respondents 4 and 5. The Court directed the concerned police officer to ensure peace, instruct the SHO to provide protection if requested, and act without delay on such requests.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 3rd respondent to ensure law and order and to act on a request for police protection if made by the petitioner without delay.

Sunny K.P. Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.3594 OF 2021(Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUNNY K.P., AGED 65 YEARS S/O. PHILIP, KARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PLASSANAL P.O., MELAMBARA KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.BABY THOMAS SRI.K.D.ZACHARIAS SRI.K.ANIL JOSEPH SRI.BIJU GEORGE SMT.MARIAMMA JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶11

2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686575.

¶12

3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4 M.U. ULAHANNAN @ JOY, MANJAPALLIL HOUSE, PLASSANAL P.O., MELAMBARA KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686579.

¶14

5 JOSE GEORGE, PARAKUNNEL HOUSE, PLASSANAL P.O., MELAMBARA KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686579.

¶15

R1-3 SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.3594 of 2021

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner in possession of 3 Acres of land in Sy.Nos.328/1 and 378/2 of Thalappalam Village in Meenachil Taluk, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide effective and adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his workers, who are engaged for cutting and removing the rubber trees standing in the property comprised in Sy.Nos.328/1 and 378/2 of Thalappalam Village in Meenachil Taluk, without any obstruction from respondents 4 and 5 and their men. In the writ petition, it is alleged that, respondents 4 and 5 are causing obstruction to the cutting and removing of 300 rubber trees standing in the petitioner's property. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 07.12.2020 before the 3^rd respondent Circle Inspector of Police; Ext.P3 complaint dated 07.12.2020 before the 1^st respondent Superintendent of Police; and Ext.P4 complaint dated 07.12.2020 before the 2^nd respondent

¶20

¶21

WP(C)No.3594 of 2021

¶22

Deputy Superintendent of Police. The document placed on record as Ext.P1 is the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.11.2017 in W.P.(C)No.35025 of 2017, whereby the petitioner and his workers were granted police protection, for tapping rubber, in case there is any threat to law and order from the side of respondents 4 and 5 herein.

¶23

On 11.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 and 5, returnable by 19.02.2021. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

¶24

A statement on behalf of the 3^rd respondent is placed on record on 01.03.2021, in which it is stated that, on receipt of

¶25

the complaints made by the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 were instructed to avoid any untoward incidents in the area. No law and order situation prevails in the area and there is no need for police protection for cutting and removing the rubber trees.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

¶27

¶28

WP(C)No.3594 of 2021

¶29

the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to

¶30

Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 4 and 5.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

WP(C)No.3594 of 2021

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

"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.

¶37

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."

¶38

In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary

¶39

[(2014) 2 SCC 532] the Apex Court held that, one of the

¶40

responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and

¶41

¶42

WP(C)No.3594 of 2021

¶43

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)

¶44

15 SCC 470] .

¶45

The grievance of the petitioner is against the threat alleged to have been caused by respondents 4 and 5, preventing the petitioner and his workers from cutting and removing rubber trees standing in his property. On receipt of complaint, the 3^rd respondent Circle Inspector of Police has already summoned respondents 4 and 5 and instructed them to avoid any untoward incidents.

¶46

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶47

(i) The 3^rd respondent shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the

¶48

¶49

¶50

locality, at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 or their supporters, in connection with cutting and removing of rubber trees standing in the petitioner's property.

¶51

(ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner or the workers engaged by him for cutting and removing rubber trees standing in the petitioner's property, from the side of respondents 4 and 5 or their men, the petitioner shall move the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer with a request for Police protection.

¶52

(iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra.

¶53

No order as to costs.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2017 IN WPC 35025/2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07/12/2020. EXHIBIT P3 & 4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SERIES 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07/12/2020.

¶62

THE RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶63

TRUE COPY

¶64

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sunny K.P. v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny K.P. v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thamesbay Marketing Llp, Vs Commissioner of Police

Gita Subba Rao Vs State of Kerala

Navas Sherief M. Vs the District Police Chief

Haridas Nanji and Sons Vs State of Kerala

S Suhail.T Vs the District Police Chief

K.K.Abdul Gafoor Vs the District Police Chief