Dispute over closing gate: Kerala High Court does away with police protection granted to couple

The Kerala High Court recently set aside a single judge's direction granting police protection to a couple in a property dispute with their relatives over the closure of a gate [MK Aravindakshan & anr v MR Pradeep & ors and connected case]..A bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used to grant police protection unless there is proof of a real law and order issue.The bench stressed that the police force has been facing greater demands each day, but they only have limited resources and granting protection routinely in civil matters without a real issue would only divert their attention from genuine emergencies."The police force operates with limited resources and has to attend to various duties, often emergent ones. Routinely ordering police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without the apprehension of serious law and order issues being established, would divert the time and energy of the police force from areas where genuine law and order issues exist. Thus, orders for police protection may have implications extending beyond the parties before the Court, and this is a factor which the writ court ought to keep in mind," the Court said..MR Pradeep and his wife Chitra A had disputes with their family members over a property in which both they and their relatives claimed to have ownership.The couple approached the High Court in 2023 seeking police protection to close a gate in their property. They alleged that they were facing threats and obstruction by other family members to keep it open and therefore, needed police protection.A single-judge allowed their plea and directed the police to provide assistance.However, their relative, MK Aravindakshan, his son MA Sudheer and another family member MA Sunil challenged the single-judge's order by filing separate appeals before the Court.They pointed out that a civil suit involving the same dispute had already been decided by a munsiff court in 2018, which dismissed the couple's claim and counter-claims seeking a declaration of easement rights (right of passage/ way) and an injunction to stop the appellants from locking the gate..After going through the facts and the submissions, the High Court clarified that police assistance under the Civil Procedure Code and police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution were fundamentally different.Before ordering the police to provide protection, courts must ensure that all requirements for issuing a writ of mandamus are met, the Bench underlined."The Court has to ensure that all prerequisites for issuing a writ of mandamus are met before directing the police authorities to provide protection to private parties. The existence of a threat to law and order is a jurisdictional fact for the issuance of the writ of mandamus. This jurisdictional fact needs to be established before a writ of mandamus can be issued," the Court held.It noted that in the present case, the single-judge should have applied this principle to find whether there was an absolute need for providing protection in a civil dispute case, where there was no law and order situation. The judge should have considered whether the parties could be suggested to approach a civil court for their grievances instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.Accordingly, the Court set aside the single-judge's order and restored the petition for the single judge to verify if mandamus was justified, assess alternative remedies and determine whether the property's status quo ante (the previously existing state of affairs) should be restored. .The appellants were represented by advocate C Anilkumar (Kallesseril) and KS Frijo.The respondents, Pradeep and Chitra, were represented by Senior Counsel Santhosh Mathew along with advocate AA Mohammed Nazir.Senior Government Pleader Thushara James appeared for the State and police authorities..[Read Judgment]