Ramachandra Menon,J
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner to take out household articles from her residential building which was taken on rent from the 6th respondent way back in the year 2012.
2. The sequence of events as narrated by the writ petitioner shows that the petitioner was residing in the aforesaid building along with the family while her husband was employed in Malaysia. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner had arranged a 'job visa' to the 5th respondent and he was taken to Malaysia accordingly. However, since the job was not to the satisfaction of the 5th respondent, he returned on the ticket arranged by the petitioner's husband himself. In the course of W.P.(c) No.12215 of 2014 2 further proceedings, allegedly because of the atrocious act being pursued by the concerned parties, demanding return of amounts stated as paid, the petitioner was made to leave the residence by August 2012. Now, she wants to take back all the household articles from the said rented building and has filed a petition to the police. In spite of the best efforts taken by the petitioner, she is simply made to run from pillar to post, compelling the petitioner to file this writ petition, seeking for effective police protection.
3. The learned State Attorney submits, on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, that the version of the petitioner as such is not correct and further that there are serious disputes between parties concerned, involving money transactions. On going through the representation filed by the petitioner, copy of which is produced as Ext.P5, it is stated that the petitioner had taken the building on monthly rent of `8500/- also effecting a deposit of `30,000/-. It is also seen from the pleadings and proceedings that the rent is in arrears and that amounts are due from the petitioner to the owner of the building, which requires to be quantified. Whether the goods retained and kept in the building W.P.(c) No.12215 of 2014 3 are exclusively belonging to the petitioner is also a fact which is to be looked into and ascertained. These facts will have to be ascertained and adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings and evidence to be let in before the appropriate court.
This Court find that the above exercise does not come within the realm of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the petitioner to pursue the remedy before other appropriate forum. Without prejudice to the rights and interests as above, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
sj 26/05