Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1634 of 2006
PETITIONER:
P.R. Murlidharan & Ors
RESPONDENT:
Swami Dharamanda Theertha Padar & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/2006
BENCH:
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 22268 OF 2004)
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.
1. I respectfully agree with the reasoning and
conclusion of my learned Brother and agree that the appeal
has to be allowed and the decision of the High Court set
aside.
2. A Writ Petition under the guise of seeking a writ
of mandamus directing the police authorities to give
protection to a Writ Petitioner, cannot be made a forum for
adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the
High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a
particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of
injunction passed in favour of the Writ Petitioner, was
deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the
petitioner applying for it, the police authorities are not
giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or
order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite
another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing
protection in respect of property, status or right which
remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an
adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted
civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a Writ
Petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the police authorities to protect his claimed
possession of a property without first establishing his
possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to
grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the
High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India would remain effective and
meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in
appropriate situations.
3. In the case on hand, various disputed questions
arose based on a deed of trust and the facts pleaded by the
Writ Petitioner and controverted by the other side. The
High Court should have normally directed the Writ
Petitioner to have his rights adjudicated upon, in an
appropriate suit in a civil court. The fact that a Writ
Petitioner may be barred from approaching the civil court,
in view of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or
some other provisions, is no ground for the High Court to
take upon itself, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
India, the duty to adjudicate on the civil rights of parties for
the purpose of deciding whether a writ of mandamus could
be issued to the police authorities for the protection of the
alleged rights of the Writ Petitioner. A writ of mandamus
directing the police authorities to give protection to the
person of a Writ Petitioner can be issued, when the court is
satisfied that there is a threat to his person and the
authorities have failed to perform their duties and it is
different from granting relief for the first time to a person
either to allegedly protect his right to property or his right
to an office, especially when the pleadings themselves
disclose that disputed questions are involved. My learned
Brother has rightly pointed out that the High Court was in
error in proceeding to adjudicate on the rights and
obligations arising out of the trust deed merely based on
the affidavits and the deed itself. I fully agree with my
learned Brother that the High Court should not have
undertaken such an exercise on the basis that the right of
the Writ Petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India is sought to be affected by the actions of the
contesting respondents and their supporters and that can
be prevented by the issue of the writ of mandamus prayed
for.
4. 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.
5. Having said this, I agree with my learned Brother
and allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court
and dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent .