IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24680 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAJEENA, W/O.BASHEER, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALAMANIYIL, KAVASSERY, KAZHANI, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SECRETARY, HEAD LOAD WORKERS' UNION (INTUC), CHUNDAKKAD UNIT, KAVASSERY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL FOR R1 SMT.S.CHITHRA FOR R1 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 24680/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND APPROVED BY THE KAVASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD. 12.09.2007. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 29.07.08. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE KAVASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 8.9.2008. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 24680 OF 2008-K ----------------------------------------- Dated 17th September, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner started construction of a residential building. On 28.7.2008 a vehicle loaded with country bricks was brought to the site. While so, the members of the union represented by the 1st respondent came there, obstructed the vehicle and threatened the driver, demanding unloading charges. They, by show of force, compelled the driver of the vehicle to pay them Rs.150/-. They took the said amount and threatened that in future also, if there is any unloading work, the members of the said union should be called. Pointing out the above alleged criminal actions of the 1st respondent's union, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 petition before the 2nd respondent S.I of Police. The prayer in that petition was to take action against the persons mentioned therein and redress her grievance. But, this writ petition is filed, seeking the WPC 24680/08 2 following reliefs: “(i) to declare that the 1st respondent union has no right to load and unload the materials for the construction of the petitioner's residential building at Kavassery, Alathur. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner as well as her workmen for the construction of her residential building at Kavassery and to do all works including loading and unloading of materials without being obstructed by the members of the 1st respondent union.” 2. The first relief claimed is plainly not maintainable. Declaratory relief as part of prerogative remedies is sought against the ultra vires actions of the statutory authorities. Whether the petitioner has got right to load/unload materials, engaging persons of her choice, is a dispute between her and the 1st respondent. In that case this Court cannot make any declaration. Further, in this jurisdiction we are concerned only with the failure from the part of the police to perform their statutory duties. That means, our powers are coterminous with the duties of the police. The police do not have any power or authority to make a declaration as sought for by the petitioner. If that be so, we are not justified in venturing to make any declaration. The second prayer WPC 24680/08 3 is for police protection to do all works, including loading/unloading of materials in the petitioner's building site. But, before seeking an order for police protection from this Court for doing those works, the petitioner has not moved the police. Ext.P2 does not contain any such prayer. A prayer for mandamus can be made, if only there is a demand before the statutory authority and the said authority has failed to discharge its duty. So, the second prayer is made by the petitioner without moving the police first. Therefore, the said prayer also cannot be granted. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/