Dismissed¶35

C.Karthikeyan v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC4 Jun 2026WP Crl./1056/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ of mandamus; demolition of building; Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Demolition Order Na.Ka.No.2700/2026/H.1 (Va); Article 226 Constitution of India; WP Crl.; illegal occupation by seller/permitted occupant; eviction through Civil Court required before demolition; writ dismissed as devoid of merits; Madras High Court, criminal side writ, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J.

What did the court decide?

Without evicting the 3rd respondent from the subject premises in accordance with law, the demolition of the house property cannot be carried out. ¶29

C.Karthikeyan Vs The Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP Crl. No. 1056 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN WP Crl. No. 1056 of 2026

¶6

C.Karthikeyan Door No.103, Sethupathi Cottage, Golden Nagar, Malumichampatti, Coimbatore - 641 050.

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

The Commissioner of Police O/o. The Commissioner of Police Coimbatore.

¶10

The Inspector of Police Saravanampatti Police Station, Coimbatore.

¶11

Shanmugavel S/o. Late Natarajan, 11, 2^nd Street Poombugar Nagar Saravanampatti Coimbatore

¶12

Shabeer Ahamed S/o. Abdul Ajish 3287, Gandhi Manager South Coimbatore Coimbatore ..Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2, particularly the jurisdictional police authorities, to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner for the purpose of carrying out the demolition of the building in accordance with the Demolition Order

¶14

Page1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

WP Crl. No. 1056 of 2026

¶17

Na.Ka.No.2700/2026/H.1 (Va) dated 10-4-2026 issued by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, based on the petitioners representation dated 15-4-2026, and consequently ensure that the said demolition is carried out peacefully and without any obstruction or interference from the respondents or any third parties.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi

¶19

For Respondent(s):

¶20

Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) -R1 & R2

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for the purpose of carrying out demolition of the building owned by him as per the order dated 10.04.2026, issued by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation.

¶23

2.The petitioner had purchased the house property by the registered sale deed dated 15.11.2024, registered as Document No.12089 of 2024. Thereafter, the petitioner himself allowed the 3^rd respondent to stay in the house property. Though, the petitioner paid the entire sale consideration, the 3^rd respondent fails to vacate the premises and attempted to extract more money from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 1^st and 2^nd respondent to take appropriate action as against the illegal occupation of the 3^rd respondent. On the other hand, the petitioner also obtained permission from the authority

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

WP Crl. No. 1056 of 2026

¶27

concerned to demolish the entire house property. The petitioner was also permitted to demolish the house property on certain conditions. After obtaining the order from the concerned authority, the petitioner once again lodged a complaint seeking police protection to the petitioner while demolishing the house.

¶28

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the conditions imposed by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, the petitioner necessarily ought to have obtained permission from the police before demolition of the house property.

¶29

4.Admittedly, the petitioner had purchased the house property from the 3^rd respondent and other legal heirs of the original owner of the house property. The petitioner himself permitted the 3^rd respondent to stay in the house property. Now, the 3^rd respondent has occupied the subject premises. Therefore, without evicting the 3^rd respondent in accordance with law, the demolition cannot be done in the house property. Hence, instead of approaching the Civil Court for appropriate relief, the petitioner simply asked for police protection to the petitioner for demolishing the house property. However, the directions sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.

¶30

__________ Page3 of 4

¶31

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

¶32

WP Crl. No. 1056 of 2026

¶33

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶34

kas

¶35

5.This writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.