IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1069 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ YOUSUF.C.H,S/O.LATE MEERANKUNHI HAJI, CHINNAMOGARU, HEROOR PO, HEROOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. HADDAAT JUMA MASJID,CHINNAMOGARU, REP.BY THE PRESIDET YOUSUF THOTTAN, S/O.IBRAHIM,CHINNAMOGARU, HEROOR PO, KASARAGODE - 671 324. 2. BADRIYA JUMA MASJID HEROOR, REP.BY THE PRESIDENT SRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI,RESIDING AT HEROOR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGODE TALUK - 671 324. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBLA POLICE STATION - 671 321. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGODE - 671 121. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ R4 & R5 BY GOVERMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1069/2011 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.1892/2010 IN OS NO.320/2010 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, KASARAGODE. P2: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 4/01/2011. P2(): COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: R1(A): COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN CMA NO.2 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGODE. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Civil) No.1069 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 Judgment Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this court seeking issue of directions to respondents 3 and 4 under Article 226 of the Constitution to afford police protection to the petitioner for the peaceful conduct of a Madrassa without any physical obstruction, violence or wanton acts on the part of respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is a member of the Mahal and in that manner is said to be interested in the proper conduct of the Madrassa. The 1st respondent is the President of the Juma Masjid Committee. The 2nd respondent is said to be the President of a committee which has control over the running of the Madrassa. The petitioner has a grievance that respondents 1 and 2 are attempting to interfere with the syllabus and curriculum employed by the Madrassa. In view of that dispute, the petitioner along with three others has gone before the civil court and has obtained Ext.P1 interim order. In spite of Ext.P1 interim order, the syllabus in the Madrassa is attempted to be altered WPC 1069/2011 2 and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this court with this writ petition. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have entered appearance. But they take the stand that the petitioner has absolutely nothing to do with the running of the Madrassa. Except that he is a member of the Mahal/Mosque, no other right is claimed by the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 dispute even that assertion. According to them, the petitioner is attempting to interfere in the affairs of the Madrassa for which he has absolutely no right. According to the party respondents, the suit O.S.No.320 of 2010 in which Ext.P1 interim order has been passed is not maintainable. The contesting respondents have raised such a contention before the trial court and the same is yet to be considered. Even against Ext.P1 interim order, an appeal has been preferred and the same is pending before the District Judge, Kasaragode as C.M.A.No.2 of 2011. The C.M.Appeal is posted for hearing on 7.2.2011. The petitioner's attempt now is to secure an order for police protection and use the same against the respondents in the said C.M.Appeal pending before the District Judge, Kasaragode, submits counsel for respondents 1and 2. WPC 1069/2011 3 4. The learned counsel for the party respondents points out that till now there is no complaint of any violation of Ext.P1 order. The assertions made that the party respondents would resort to violence and interfere with the conduct of the Madrassa is not justified. The petitioner has no interest in the running of the Madrassa. In any view of the matter, the petitioner who obtained Ext.P1 order itself in a non-maintainable proceedings and the same is under challenge before the appellate court, cannot be permitted to arm himself with a blanket order for police protection. If the party respondents violated Ext.P1 order, the petitioner will have to approach the court concerned complaining of such violation. The appeal is already admitted and numbered and the petitioner will have to resist the challenge raised against Ext.P1 in C.M.Appeal No.2 of 2011 before the District Judge. In these circumstances, the petitioner may not be permitted to arm himself with an order for police protection at this juncture, submits the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 5. We have anxiously adverted to all the relevant circumstances. We find merit in the opposition by the party WPC 1069/2011 4 respondents. We note particularly that no action is being taken for alleged violation of Ext.P1 order. We do note that the maintainability of the proceedings itself is challenged before the court concerned. We further note that Ext.P1 is under challenge and the appellate court is already seized of the matter. At this juncture, we are not persuaded to issue any directions for police protection to the petitioner. 6. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We may hasten to observe that we have not intended to express any opinion on the maintainability of the proceedings in which Ext.P1 order has been passed or about the sustainability of Ext.P1 order which is now challenged before the appellate court in C.M.Appeal No.2 of 2011. R.BASANT, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. srd WPC 1069/2011 5 WPC 1069/2011 6