IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33724 of 2010(M)
1. SHAMSUDHEEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. SIRAJUDHEEN, S/O.ASANARUPILLAI,
5. SIDHIQUE, S/O.ABDUL AZIZ,
6. ASHARAFF, S/O.SHOUKATH,
7. ABDULAZIZ, S/O.ALI UMMERKUNJU,
For Petitioner :SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
For Respondent :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :11/11/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.33724 of 2010-M
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
“i) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and sufficient
police protection for the General Body meeting of the
Thattamala Muslim Jama-Ath Committee represented by
the petitioner which is scheduled on 12.11.2010 and
ensure peace, law and order in the locality.
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ist
respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P2
submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and
see that no law and order situation is created in the
area.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as
follows: Petitioner is the Secretary of Thattamala Jama-Ath, a
registered organisation. There are complaints against the 9th
respondent. Removal of 9th respondent is sought. The
General Body was scheduled to be held on 5.11.2010 as
notified by the petitioner. Petitioner sought police protection
before the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P1. The meeting was
convened on 5.11.2010. But, since respondents 2 and 3 had
WPC No.33724/2010 -2-
not provided any safeguards, respondents 4 to 8 at the
instance of the 9th respondent brought some outside antisocial
elements inside the meeting hall and created a fearsome
atmosphere there. The General Body is now proposed to be
held on 12.11.2010. Petitioner filed representation seeking
protection.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by the party
respondents. In the counter affidavit it is inter alia stated that
order of injunction has been granted by the civil Court against
removal of any staff for ten days.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the party respondents and also
the learned Government Pleader.
5. Of course, it is true that the 5th respondent is
one of the plaintiffs and the petitioner at whose instance the
interim injunction is granted. It is pointed out that the order is
obtained after the filing of the writ petition and notice is
received. Learned counsel for the party respondents points
out that the suit is filed on 10.11.2010 and there are other
plaintiffs apart from the 5th respondent in the suit. The fact of
the matter is now there is an order of injunction passed by the
civil Court for ten days. Learned counsel for the petitioner
WPC No.33724/2010 -3-
would point out that the injunction is only against removal and
meeting can go on. He would also submit that 300 members
requisitioned urgent meeting and there will be law and order
situation. We would not think that it will be a proper exercise
of jurisdiction to grant relief.
6 . Learned Government Pleader would submit that
there are disputes between the parties and police have made
necessary arrangements to avoid the law and order situation.
7. We do not think that the petitioner has made
out a case for granting protection in exercise of our extra
ordinary jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case. The
writ petition fails, and it is dismissed without prejudice to the
rights of the petitioner to seek remedies in appropriate
Court/forum.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.C.HARI RANI)
JUDGE.
MS