Disposed

Literacy Mission Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The Superintendent of Police(Rural)

Madras HC11 Jun 2019WP/14669/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection during a dispute over school management between rival trust claimants, directing parties to approach the civil court for the ultimate resolution.

What did the court decide?

Police protection to be continued for three weeks; parties directed to initiate civil proceedings.

Literacy Mission Matriculation Higher Secondary… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.06.2019

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶4

W.P.No.14669 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.14666 of 2019

¶5

Literacy Mission Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Represented by its Principal Karanampettai-Somaur Road, Samalapuram, Tiruppur-641 663.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police (Rural) Collectorate Building, Behind LRG College, Palladdam Road, Tiruppur-641 601.

¶9

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Main Road, Near Palladam Police Station, Paladdam, Tiruppur-641 664.

¶10

3.The Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Paladam Road, Mangalam – 641 663 Tiruppur District. 4. M.Subramaniam

¶11

G. Rathinasabapathy

¶12

G.Manoharan

¶13

M.Ganesan

¶14

M.Srinivasan

¶15

Thangaraj

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to provide police protection to the petitioner School in order to enable the School Committee of the petitioner School to conduct the smooth functioning of the school by acting on the complaint/representation dated 13.05.2019.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. V.P.Sengottuvel

¶20

For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

For Respondents No.4 to 9 : Mr.T.N.Sugesh

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for police protection to the petitioner to enable the School Committee to smoothly run the day-to-day operations in the school.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 to 9.

¶25

The crux of the case is that there is a dispute between the trustees who have made rival claims with regard to the management of the school. The petitioner is claiming right to run the school pursuant to the resolution dated 16.01.2019, wherein the School Committee was appointed by the Trust. According to the petitioner, the respondents 4 to 9 do not have any right to interfere with the functioning of the school. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 to 9 submitted that the resolution itself is not sustainable and the petitioner do not have any right to stop the respondents from participating in the management of the school. The learned counsel further submitted that a suit was filed by the Trust in O.S.No.52 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Tirppur claiming for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the property of the Trust.

¶26

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police submitted that the police have given protection to the school, keeping in mind the interest of the children, who are studying in the school and to ensure that no unnecessary disturbance is caused at the time of admission. Now that, the admission is over, the respondent police do not want to continue with the police protection and the rival claimants will have to work out their remedy only in the pending suit and the police cannot undertake the task of deciding as to the trustees who will be entitled to run the school. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent police do not want to continue to provide police protection to the school.

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials placed on record.

¶29

This is a case, where there is a rival claim as between the parties to run the school which stands in the name of the Trust. The petitioner is claiming the right by virtue of a resolution dated 27.12.2018 and later, confirmed on 25.01.2019. That apart, reliance is also placed on the School Committee that was appointed and approved by a resolution dated 16.01.2019. The respondents 4 to 9 are challenging all these resolutions and are taking a stand that it is not binding on the existing trustees. This is a dispute which cannot be resolved in this writ petition and the parties will have to necessarily work out their remedy only before the competent civil court.

¶30

As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the respondent police cannot determine as to who has the right to run the school in view of the rival claims and it will not be possible for the police to give protection to the school perpetually.

¶31

In a case of this nature, it is always safe to leave the dispute to be resolved by a competent Civil Court and providing police protection to one party continuously will certainly prejudice the interest of the other party. This Court granted interim protection taking into consideration the safety and interest of the children who were joining the school and when the admission process was going on. Now that, it is over, this Court does not deem it fit to continue the police protection and this Court directs the parties to agitate their rights before the competent Civil Court. If ultimately, the Civil Court passes any order in favour of one of the parties and thereafter, police protection is required to ensure the compliance of the order, the parties can at that point of time approach the same Civil Court seeking for police protection by filing a petition under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. The Civil Court has wide powers to deal with the situation.

¶32

This Court has not gone into the merits of the case and this Court has only considered the narrow scope of this writ petition as to whether the police protection has to be continued for a further period. This Court is not inclined to continue with the police protection for the reasons stated herein above and liberty is given to the parties to work out their remedy before the appropriate Civil Court in accordance with law.

¶33

This Court does not want to abruptly end the police protection and is inclined to extend the protection for a couple of weeks so that the petitioner can approach the appropriate forum and work out its remedy.

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the 3^rd respondent to continue the police protection that was already granted by this Court, for a further period of three weeks. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to take steps to initiate proceedings before the appropriate court and work out its remedy in accordance with law. It is made clear that the police protection will cease to exist after the expiry of three weeks. It goes without saying that the police protection will continue on the payment of the necessary charges as directed by this Court by its order dated 25.03.2019. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

uma

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

¶42

The Superintendent of Police (Rural) Collectorate Building,

¶43

Behind LRG College,

¶44

Palladdam Road,

¶45

Tiruppur-641 601.

¶46

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Main Road, Near Palladam Police Station, Paladdam, Tiruppur-641 664.

¶47

3.The Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Paladam Road, Mangalam – 641 663 Tiruppur District.

¶48

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶49

+1cc to Mr.U.P.Sengottuvel, Advocate, SR.No.48459

¶50

(dated: 14/06/2019)

¶51

W.P.No.14669 of 2019 and WMP No.14666 of 2019

¶52

Kak(13/06/2019)

¶53

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Literacy Mission Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The Superintendent of Police(Rural)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Literacy Mission Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The Superintendent of Police(Rural)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Elumalai Vs State Rep. by Its

Ranjith Kumar Vs Indirani

G.Pasupathy Vs M.Thiyagarajan

Shanmuganathan Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Nagaraj Vs the State Rep by Its

M.Kamalakannan Vs State Rep.by