W.P.No.31369/2006
1.The District Collector, Vellore District,Vellore.
2.The President, Virunchipuram Panchayat Union, Anaicut Onriyum, Vellore District. ... Respondents in W.P.No.31370/2006
1.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District,Vellore -9.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vellore -9. ... Respondents in W.P.No.26384/2007 Prayer in W.P.No.31369 of 2006 Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus,directing the respondents herein from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property at Old Survey No.122B New Survey Nos. 347/15 and 347/9 in Virunchipuram Village, Vellore Dist.
Prayer in W.P.No.31370 of 2006 Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of certiorarified mandamus,to call for the records pertaining to the rejection of the petitioners application dated 25.1.2006 for renewal of the license for the construction of Vishwakarma Thirumana Maaligai in his impugned order dated 01.08.2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent herein to renew the petitioners license for construction of Vishwakarma Thirumana Maaligai at the petitioners Property at Old S.No. 122B, New S.Nos.347/15 and 347/9 in Virunchipuram Village Vellore Dist.
W.P.No.26384 of 2007 Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent herein namely the Superintendent of police vellore district, Vellore to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner herein to enable them to construct the marriage hall in their property at survey No.347/15 and Survey No.347/9 in Virunchipuram Village Vellore district.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan,G.A.
C O M M O N O R D E R The same petitioner Association has filed all the three writ petitions. The petitioner is running a Marriage Hall in the name of Vishwakarma Thirumana Maaligai Dharmasthapanam. The petitioner claims to be a registered charitable Trust.
2. In the first writ petition being W.P.No.31369 of 2006, the petitioner had sought for a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Old Survey Nos.122B, New Survey Nos.347/15 and 347/9 in Vellore District. In that writ petition, apart from the official respondents, a private party was also made as the 6th respondent. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim injunction as prayed for.
3. In W.P.No.31370 of 2006, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 01.08.2006, wherein, the second respondent refused to grant extension of planning permit for completing the construction as it was issued to construct the building within three years (from 06.02.2003 to 05.02.2006). Further, it was resolved by the Panchayat that it was not proper to renew the permit since hardly 30% construction was completed even after three years.
4. Both the writ petitions were admitted on 06.09.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the third writ petition being W.P.No.26384 of 2007, seeking for a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Vellore to provide adequate police protection to enable the petitioner to construct the marriage hall in their property. That writ petition was not even admitted by this Court. It is only when that writ petition came up for hearing, the other two writ petitions were also directed to be posted. The petitioner had also filed an interim application to implead several other official respondents including a private party who was a former M.L.A. of the constituency.
5. When questioned as to how these writ petitions are maintainable, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's right to enjoy the property was sought to be interfered with by the official respondents at the instance of the private respondent. Therefore, the interim injunction was sought for. He also submitted that there was no justification in the Panchayat in not renewing the planning permit. With reference to the right to get police protection, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court:-
i)P.R.Murlidharan and others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others [(2006) 4 SCC 501]
ii)Howrah Mills Co. Ltd and another v. Md.Shamin and others [(2006) 5 SCC 539]
iii)Moran M.Baselios Marthoma Mathews II and others v. State of Kerala and others [(2007) 6 SCC 517]
6. With reference to the first writ petition (W.P.No.31369/2006) seeking for injunction, which includes a private respondent, the matter is purely a civil dispute. It is for the petitioner to approach an appropriate Civil Court for claiming such relief. If the petitioner has already any decree in his favour, the petitioner can also approach the same Court for executing the decree. In execution of a Civil decree, if any police protection is necessary, the petitioner can always approach the very same Court for appropriate police protection for which adequate powers are available under Section 151 CPC. Therefore, W.P.Nos.31369 of 2006 and W.P.No.26384 of 2007 are not maintainable.
7. Of the three decisions cited by the petitioner, the first decision P.R.Murlidharan's case (cited supra) is squarely against the petitioner. In paragraphs 12 and 13 as well as in the concurring opinion Justice P.K.Balasubramanyan in paragraph 19 have observed as follows:
"12.It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so is open to question. A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which were beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact. Respondent 1 who sought to claim a status was required to establish the same in a court of law in an appropriate proceeding. He for one reason or the other, failed to do so. The provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stare on his face. He,therefore, could not have filed a writ petition for getting the selfsame issues determined in his favour which he could not do even by filing a suit. Indeed the jurisdiction of the writ court is wide while granting relief to a citizen of India so as to protect his life and liberty as adumbrated under
Article 21 of the Constitution,but wile doing so it could not collaterally go into that question, determination whereof would undoubtedly be beyond its domain. What was necessary for determination of the question arising in the writ petition was not the interpretation of the documents alone, but it required adduction of oral evidence as well. Such evidence was necessary for the purpose of explaining the true nature of the deed of trust, as also the practice followed by this trust. In any event, the impleading applicant herein, as noticed hereinbefore, has raised a contention that he alone was ordained to hold the office as per they bye-laws of the trust. The qualification of the first respondent to hold the office was also in question. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that such disputed questions could not have been gone into b y the High Court in a writ proceeding.
13.Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is wide and plenary. In a case of this nature,a writ proceeding cannot be a substitute for a civil suit.
19. A writ for "police protection" so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order."
8. In the second decision Howrah Mills' case (cited supra, the situation for grant of relief was entirely different. In that case, a company's property which was brought under BIFR was pilferred due to the lack of security. When police protection was sought for, cost was demanded by the police department which will incur further loss to the company. In that context, the Supreme Court gave certain directions to provide police protection. The said case has no parallel to the case of the petitioner.
9. In the third case Moran M.Baselios Marthoma Mathews (cited supra) the Supreme Court referred to P.R.Murlidharan's case and in paragraph 9 approved the same. Apart from the approval of Murlidharan's case, in paragraph 15, it was observed as follows:-
"15. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a manifest error in going into the disputed questions of title as also the disputed questions in regard to the rights of a particular group to manage the Churches, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, particularly, when such questions are pending consideration before competent civil courts. We, therefore, are of the opinion that any observation made by the High Court should not influence the courts concerned in arriving at their independent decisions and in respect thereof, all contentions of the parties shall remain open."
10. Therefore, these three decisions do not support the case of the petitioner. In so far as W.P.No.31370 of 2006 is concerned, the order came to be passed on a resolution made by the Panchayat. As against such resolution, if the petitioner feels aggrieved he could always move the Inspector of Panchayat, (who is the District Collector) under Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. The Inspector by virtue of the said provision has power to check any irregularities of illegalities in a resolution passed by the Panchayat. It is open to the petitioner to move the appropriate authorities for getting the resolution of the panchayat set aside. If any such application is filed under Section 202 within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the concerned District Collector shall consider the said application on merits without objecting to any limitation. With that liberty, W.P.No.31370 of 2006 also stands dismissed.
11. In the result, all the three writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
svki To
1.The District Collector, Vellore District,Vellore.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Vellore District, Vellore.
3.The President, Virunchipuram Panchayat Union, Anaicut Onriyum, Vellore District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectors Office, Sathuvacheri, Vellore -9.
5.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Fort, Vellore