IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 19154 of 2001(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- HOLLY HILLS ESTATE, REP: BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER FR.JOHN CHOOLAPARAMBIL, SWAMI COLONY, VANDANMEDU P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1) STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU. 2) SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU. 3) TAHSILDAR (R.R.), NEDUMKANDAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 19154 of 2001(E) APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits:- P1: Copy of the judgment dtd.7/6/99 in OP.No.13215/99-W of this Hon'ble Court. P2: Copy of demand notice dtd.5.6.2001 issued by the 3rd respondent. P3: Copy of the judgment dtd.7-6-1999 in OP.No.13215 of 1999-W. Respondents' Exhibits:- Nil (true copy) PA to Judge. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ======================= OP.No.19154 of 2001-E. ======================= Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The substantial challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 demand notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act whereby the petitioner has been asked to pay an amount of Rs.1,96,800/- stated to be for police guards provided for the period from 4.6.1999 to 10.7.1999. The petitioner is the Managing Partner of an Estate known as Holly Hills Estate, having an extend of 10 acres in Vandanmedu Village. It is cultivated with cardamom. 2. In view of obstruction raised by the members of a union to the agricultural operations, the petitioner's brother filed a writ petition OP.No.13216/1999 seeking for police protection for his life and his property. He was also one of the partners of the Estate. By Ext.P1 judgment this Court granted police protection to the life of the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner OP.No.19154 of 2001-E. -: 2 :- by relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in the District Superintendent of Police v. George (2000 (2) ILR (Kerala) 47) that since the police were only discharging their statutory duty the petitioner or the property cannot be made liable for any expenses for the same. It is further pointed out that the averments in the counter affidavit that the protection was granted from 4.6.1999 to 11.5.2000 is not correct. 4. The learned Government Pleader relying on the averments in the counter affidavit submitted that the amount represents the cost for police guards and protection provided to the petitioner for the period from 4.6.1999 to 11.5.2000. 5. In the decision reported in the District Superintendent of Police v. George (2000(2) ILR (Kerala) 47), the matter was examined by this Court in detail and it was held that when the police is expected to discharge their statutory duties and when there is failure on it, the parties can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court seeking police protection. The State is not therefore entitled to realise the expenses from the parties concerned. The relevant OP.No.19154 of 2001-E. -: 3 :- portion of the above judgment is extracted below: “When police protection was ordered by this Court finding the police have failed to discharge their statutory duties, expenses for the same cannot be recovered. Additional expenses incurred by deploying additional police force can be recovered from the party.” 6. In view of the above legal principles, the steps taken to recover an amount of Rs.1,96,800/- from the petitioner for the period from 4.6.1999 to 10.7.1999 is not justified. In Ext.P1 judgment there was no direction to the petitioner to meet the expenses of the Police. Ext.P2 is therefore quashed. The Original Petition is allowed as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-