1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.12790 of 2011 A.Saravanakumar ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruverumbur Range, Trichy District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District. 3.Amal Raj I.P.S., Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy Region, Tiruchirapalli-620 020. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from harassing the petitioner in any manner. For Petitioner :Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents :Mr.R.Karthikeyan Addl.Government Pleader. O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from harassing them in respect of a civil dispute. 2. Heard Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 3.Admittedly, there are at least two civil disputes. The first was in O.S.No.1138 of 2008 filed by the petitioner herein in a representative capacity on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of a public street. The said suit is pending. In the meantime, the adversary namely St.Joseph's College moved a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.3734 of 2009 on the file of this Court seeking a Mandamus directing the police to grant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 protection to them. The petitioner herein were impleaded as Respondent 4 in that writ petition. That writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 11.09.2009. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said order are follows: “10. The averment made by the second respondent in the counter affidavit that there is a marked path way across 150/1, which is used as “Poosthithi Pathai”. This issue has to be established before the appropriate Civil Court. Therefore, pending such adjudication, I am of the view that if the petitioner is permitted to put up a gate, which would render the proceedings before the Civil Court virtually infructuous. However, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if any step is taken by them subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings. However, taking into consideration, the safety factors pleaded by the petitioner's Society and especially that girl students, who are Sri Lankan repatriates are staying in the campus for getting training, the first respondent is directed to make the request to the third respondent to afford sufficient police protection to prevent any intruders into the property and if such request is made, the third respondent shall take necessary action on the same and provide adequate protection. 11. With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the observation made in this Writ Petition shall not be used by either party for the purpose of advancing their case, which is pending before the Civil Court in O.S.No.1138 of 2009. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.” 4. Thereafter, contending that the respondents demolished the gate and destroyed the crops, the petitioner filed a second suit in O.S.No.984 of 2010 seeking damages in a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the St.Joseph's College and its Farm Manager. The police officers have also been made as parties to the said suit. The said suit is now pending. 5. Apart from the above, the petitioner also filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code in Cr.M.P.No.123 of 2011 against the officials of the St.Joseph's College, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirapalli. The said complaint is yet to be taken as cognizance. 6. In the back ground of the above facts, the prayer sought in this writ petition, is virtually in the nature of interim relief, pending adjudications in two civil suits and the criminal complaint. I have already made it clear in Periyamondi -Vs- The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District, in W.P.(MD)No.12081 of 2011 dated 02.11.2011 that civil disputes are better left to the civil Court to be decided. First as police has no business to interfere, the Writ Court should also not issue a direction to the police either to give protection or not to interfere. This would virtually amount to taking the role that normal civil and criminal Courts are supposed to perform. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to move appropriate petitions for interim https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 reliefs, as against even the police, this Writ Petition is dismissed. If any application is made by the petitioner for interim relief, the same shall be taken up by the civil Court and decided at the earliest in accordance with the law. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) gsr To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruverumbur Range, Trichy District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District. 3.Amal Raj I.P.S., Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy Region, Tiruchirapalli-620 020. +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 39293 W.P.(MD)NO.12790 of 2011 11.11.2011 TR :29.11.2011: 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/