Dismissed¶34

Chitra v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Feb 2025WP/4617/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC W.P.No.4617 of 2021 (05.02.2025, K.R.Shriram C.J. & Mohammed Shaffiq J.) — writ of mandamus for police protection dismissed; demolished house 'ceased to exist' so residence-based protection relief cannot arise; Article 226; District Collector & Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram; third respondent T.Govindasamy alleged unlawful demolition contrary to High Court order; liberty for fresh application subject to risk assessment for petitioner and two minor children; rights in pending civil suit kept open; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief as prayed for; petitioner given liberty to make a fresh application to respondent Nos.1 and 2 for police protection for herself and her two minor children, to be provided after a risk assessment if risk is found; no order as to costs; interim application dismissed consequentially.

Chitra Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 (District Collector and Superintendent of Police) to provide police protection enabling the petitioner's family to live in her house, given that the house has been demolished and has ceased to exist.

¶30

Court's answer

Police protection mandamus cannot issue because the demolished house has ceased to exist; since the house does not exist, the question of granting the relief as prayed for does not arise.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner fears for her life or the lives of her two minor children, she may make a fresh application to respondent Nos.1 and 2 for police protection; they shall provide protection after making a risk assessment if satisfied there is a risk to their lives.

¶35

Key takeaways

The court clarified that it made no observation on the suit filed by the petitioner and all rights and contentions in that suit are kept open.obiter¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (K.R.Shriram, C.J., author; Mohammed Shaffiq, J.), W.P.No.4617 of 2021, decided 05.02.2025 — DISMISSED. Petitioner Chitra sought a mandamus under Article 226 directing the District Collector and Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, to provide police protection for her family to live in her house at Big Kancheepuram, allegedly demolished by the third respondent T.Govindasamy contrary to an order of the High Court. The court held that since the demolished house 'has ceased to exist', nobody can reside in it and the relief as prayed for 'does not arise'; counsel for the petitioner conceded she resides elsewhere. The court nonetheless directed that if the petitioner fears for her life or the lives of her two minor children, she may apply afresh for police protection, to be granted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 after a risk assessment if they are satisfied of a risk. No observation was made on the petitioner's pending suit, all rights and contentions therein being kept open; no order as to costs; interim application dismissed consequentially.

¶1

W.P.No.4617 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.02.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶8

W.P.No.4617 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.5256 of 2021

Chitra

.. Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶13

2.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶14

3.T.Govindasamy

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner's family to live in her house at No.11A/39, Nellukara Street, Big Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District which was unlawfully demolished by the third respondent contrary to the order of the High Court by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 23.3.2020 on the file of the first and second respondents.

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.4617 of 2021

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ramesh for Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader assisted by Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Mr.K.V.Babu for respondent No.3

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶23

Petitioner has filed this writ petition to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e., the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police, to provide

¶24

police protection to her family to live in her house, which was unlawfully demolished by respondent No.3.

¶25

Mr.Babu, appearing for respondent No.3, states that in the place where the structure was demolished, a new building has been put up by his client and his client is in peaceful possession.

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.4617 of 2021

¶29

If the house has been demolished – lawfully or unlawfully, how

¶30

could somebody reside in the said house, because the house has ceased to exist. In such a situation, how can any mandamus be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide police protection.

¶31

Counsel for petitioner, in fairness, states that petitioner is residing

¶32

in another place.

¶33

Since the house does not exist, the question of granting the relief

¶34

as prayed for does not arise. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶35

At the same time, if petitioner fears for her life or the lives of her two children, who, we are informed, are still minors, petitioner may make a fresh application to respondent Nos.1 and 2 for police protection and respondent Nos.1 and 2, after making a risk assessment, shall provide police protection if they are satisfied that there is a risk to the lives of the petitioner or her two minor children.

¶36

___________ Page 3 of 5_

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.4617 of 2021

¶39