IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14228 of 2008(R)
1. ST.MARY"S HOTELS PVT. LTD.,KODIMATHA,
... Petitioner
2. T.O.ABRAHAM,S/O.LATE KURUVILLA UNNITHAN,
3. BINU ZACHARIA,S/O.LATE T.S.SKARIAH,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
6. T.O.ALEYAS,S/O.KURUVILA UNNITHAN,
7. GIGGY KURIAKOSE,
8. ABRAHAM BABY,
9. BOBBY T.KURIAKOSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :14/10/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.14228 OF 2008 R
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The first petitioner is a Private Limited Company. The second
petitioner is its Managing Director. The 3rd petitioner is one of its
Directors. The Company is running a hotel called “Windsor Castle”.
According to the petitioners, respondents 6 to 9 were the erstwhile
Directors of the Company. Later, they were removed from the
Directorship by the General Body Meeting held in 2003. The decision
of the Director Board of the first petitioner-Company to allot shares
worth Rs.2,20,000/- to the second petitioner, which tilted the balance
in the share holding, was annulled by the Company Law Board. The
Board’s decision was reversed by this Court in the appeal filed by the
petitioners. Now, the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.3446/06, filed by respondents 6 to 9. The
Apex Court passed various interim orders in the said case from time to
time. Last of the orders passed is Exhibit P8. The said order reads as
follows:
” In view of the order passed by this Court on
W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 -2-
27.2.2008 with the following effect, most of the orders
passed against the applicants have been withdrawn.
This application has therefore become infructuous. But
all the same appellants-respondents in this application
are directed not to interfere with the affairs of the hotel
but the applicants are directed to submit monthly
accounts to the respondents and take all major decisions
in consultation with them.”
The petitioners 2 and 3 submit, going by the said order, they are entitled
to manage the affairs of the first petitioner-Company. The party
respondents herein are entitled to get monthly accounts and also have a
right to be consulted, when major decisions are taken concerning the
running of the company. On 3.5.2008 respondents 6 to 9 trespassed into
the hotel, manhandled the second petitioner and indulged in violence.
The said respondents were accompanied by a goonda by name
Mr.Rajendran. Pointing out the incident which took place on 3.5.2008,
the second petitioner filed representations before the concerned police
officers, copies of which are produced as Exhibit P11 series. The
petitioners submit, the police did not take any action on those
representations, but, instead registered a crime against them, based on
the petition filed by the aforementioned respondents. The petitioners 2
W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 -3-
and 3 are being unnecessarily implicated in false cases registered by the
police on the motion made by the party respondents. They are made
accused in seven cases. They also point out that five cases have been
registered against respondents 6 to 9. The petitioners submit, in view of
the orders of the Apex Court, the party respondents have no legal right to
interfere with the management of the affairs of the company. The
commissions and omissions of respondents 6 to 9 on 3.5.2008 will
amount to interfering with the management of the company. Further,
the said respondents are indulging in criminal activities. So, the police
have a duty to intervene and grant necessary protection to the
petitioners. Therefore, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following
reliefs:
“1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to take
appropriate measures to give adequate and sufficient
police protection to the second petitioner to run the
hotel Windsor Castle, Kodimatha, Kottayam, owned by
the 1st petitioner company and to prevent illegal entry of
respondents 6 to 9 in the said premises and commission
of crimes in the hotel premises.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 -4-
writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to
issue necessary directions to 4th and 5th respondents to
refrain from harassing the petitioners and their staff any
further and not to summon the petitioners and their
staff any further and not to summon the petitioners and
their staff to the police station without following the
procedure established by law.”
2. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, resisting the
prayers in the writ petition. In said the affidavit, it is stated that
respondents 6 to 9 are still the Directors of the company. The 2nd
petitioner’s claim that he is the Managing Director, is not admitted by
them. The 6th respondent has denied all the allegations against him and
other party respondents. Regarding the incident on 3.5.2008, the said
respondent has submitted that he has been allotted and has been using
room No.409 of Hotel Windsor Castle, run by the 1st petitioner company,
as per the policy decision of the management, from the beginning of the
functioning of the hotel. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner was allotted room
No.201 in the said hotel for his use. On 3.5.2008, when the 6th
respondent entered his room, it was found that strangers were occupying
it and the records kept there were missing. When the 6th respondent went
to the reception and complained about the incident, the 2nd petitioner and
W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 -5-
others tried to snatch away the key of his room by use of force. He was
threatened and abused by the persons present there along with the 2nd
petitioner. So, he filed a complaint before the police on 3.5.2008 as
Ext.R6(b). Based on that, a crime has been registered against the 2nd
petitioner. The petitioners 2 and 3 are accused in several crimes. One
of them is for manhandling the local Sub Inspector of Police. Ext.R6(i) is
the F.I.R registered in the said incident. The 6th respondent further
submits that the intention of filing this petition for police protection is to
drive respondents 6 to 9 out from the premises of the hotel and to deny
them the rights flowing from the orders of the Apex Court.
3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions submitted
that 10 crimes have been registered against the 2nd petitioner and others
and 7 crimes have been registered against the party respondents. The
police have acted promptly, as and when offences were reported. The
official respondents also deny the allegation of the 2nd petitioner that he
has been falsely implicated in the crimes registered by the police.
Further, it is submitted, proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C have been
initiated against both the parties. The learned Government Pleader
pointed out that both the parties have executed bonds before the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, undertaking to keep peace.
4. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit, dealing with the
W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 -6-
averments in the counter affidavit of the 6th respondent. It is also stated
in the reply affidavit that the persons arrested along with the 2nd
petitioner were not goondas, but employees of the hotel.
5. The dispute between the petitioners and respondents 6 to 9 is a
civil dispute concerning the right to manage the affairs of the 1st
petitioner company. The Apex Court has already passed orders, as per
Exhibit P8 providing for the interim management of the affairs of the
hotel run by the company. If the said order is violated by any of the
parties, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to move the Apex Court and
not to approach the local police. The police have no authority or
jurisdiction to meddle in this dispute. The police cannot be authorised to
consider whether there is any violation of the order of the Apex Court and
to take remedial action. In this case, the petitioners have moved this
Court for police protection, based on an incident, which allegedly, took
place on 3.5.2008. The party respondents and the police give a different
version about the said incident. In this jurisdiction, we cannot decide
which of the versions is correct. Therefore, we think, it is not proper for
this Court to issue any direction to the police, based on the alleged
incident that took place on 3.5.2008. Further, we notice that the police
have promptly taken action whenever cognizable offences were reported.
They have altogether registered 17 crimes. Every accused in a criminal
W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 -7-
case will plead that he is innocent and the other side is at fault. But, we
cannot go into such disputes in this proceedings. It is for the competent
criminal court to decide all such contentions. Having regard to the nature
of the allegations and counter allegations, we are not persuaded to pass
any order, directing the police to involve themselves in this dispute in
favour of one side or the other. So, the prayer for an order for police
protection is declined. But, needless to say, as and when cognizable
offences are reported by either side, we are sure, the police will take
effective action in accordance with law and if found necessary, the police
will take action under Section 149 Cr.P.C also, to prevent commission of
cognizable offences. As mentioned earlier, the police have been taking
action promptly in the past. So, it is unnecessary to issue any direction
to the police as to how they should deal with the commission of
cognizable offences.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn