IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN W.P.Nos.23575 to 23578 of 2009 Mariyakannu ... Petitioner in W.P.No.23575 of 2009 Rani ... Petitioner in W.P.No.23576 of 2009 Marythangam ... Petitioner in W.P.No.23577 of 2009 Esthakki ... Petitioner in W.P.No.23578 of 2009 Versus 1.The District Collector, Villupuram District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram. 3.The Inspector of Police, Arakandanallur Police Station, Arakandanallur, Thirukovilur Taluk, Villupuram District. ... Respondents in all W.P's. Prayer in all W.P's:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to give necessary compensation to the petitioners consequent to illegal assaults on the petitioners and their family members and for damaging their household articles by a mob on 11.05.2009 at Arcot Village and Post, Thirukovilur Taluk, Villupuram District by considering petitioners representation dated 13.06.2009. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Ramalingam (in all W.P's) For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian (in all W.P's) Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDER The Petitioners have come before this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give necessary compensation to the petitioners for the assault made on the petitioners family members. 2. It is the case of the petitioners are the residents of R.C.Colony, Arcot Village, Mugaiyur (Via), Thirukovilur Taluk, Villupuram District and they are agricultural coolies. On 10.05.2009, there was a festival of Marimaatha Temple conducted by the villagers and there was some dispute with regard to share of fishing lease amount with one Mr.Sagayaraj of the same village. 3. The petitioners submitted that on 11.05.2009, a group belonging to other community came to the petitioners' place and attacked the petitioners and their family members and the properties were damaged with deadly weapons. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.23575 of 2009, the petitioner stated that he lodged a complaint before the 3rd respondent police complaining about the attack. The police received the complaint from one Paulraj a similarly affected person and it was registered as Crime No.268 of 2009 dated 11.05.2009 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 506(1) of IPC and Section 3 of the PPD Act. Again, the petitioners gave a complaint on 19.05.2009 to the 2nd respondent, the Superintendent of Police to take action and to give protection. 4. The petitioners represented for illegal attack on the petitioners family and damage caused to their properties, the State is bound to compensate. It is further contended that the police has not taken any positive action. Therefore, the petitioners have come before this Court for compensation to be payable by the respondents. 5. A perusal of the FIR would disclosed the following facts:- (i)The incident occurred on 11.05.2009 at 06.00 am. (ii)The complaint was received by the 3rd respondent police on 11.05.2009 at 11.30 am. (iii) Immediately the complaint was registered. Hence there is no delay on the part of the police. 6. The Status Report filed by the 3rd respondent Police would show that the complaint was registered in Arakandanallur Police Station in Cr.No.268 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 427, 506 of IPC r/w. Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent, the Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence on 11.05.2009 at 12.30 pm and mahazar was prepared in the presence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the witnesses at 12.45 pm. A rough sketch was prepared in the presence of the witnesses, the property which were damaged were seized and the houses of the witnesses were also inspected by the Inspector of Police. 7. On the same day, at 04.15 pm the accused namely, Arul, Abel, Francies and Sowriyappan were arrested and they were remanded to judicial custody in respect of the commission of offence as per the complaint given by the petitioners. 8. The aforesaid narration of events would make it very clear that the police acted in time without any delay and in fact the police has to be appreciated for timely and quick action taken in this regard. Therefore, there is no fault much less negligence on the part of the respondents to act as per the complaint given by the petitioners. 9. The Additional Affidavit filed by the petitioners would also in support of the action taken by the Police. Paragraph 3 of the Additional Affidavit is as follows:- " 3. .................. Since, on the entire night the police personals were in the village, the accused have not made any attempt to attack us. But, the next day i.e. On 11.05.2009, morning at about 5.30 am the said police started to go." 10. When the petitioners themselves stated that the police force remained in the village throughout the night and there was no attack on the petitioners when the police gave protection, it is too late for the petitioners in the day to complaint that there was inaction on the part of the police. 11. It is not in dispute that when there is a failure on negligence, on the part of the State to protect the citizens, this State is duty bound to compensate for the loss sustained by them provided there is negligence on the part of the State. 12. A Full Bench of this Court in P.P.M.Thangaiah Nadar Firm and Others Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006-4- L.W.560 was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to state that the petitioners are entitled to be protected by the police and the State is liable for loss of life or damage to the property. As stated above there is no quarrel with regard to the above settled position of law. The above said Judgment laid the dictum that State is not necessarily liable in every case when there is loss of life or damage to the property of such right. However, it is required to be established that Officers of the State failed to protect the life, liberty and property of the persons and such failure would amount to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dereliction of duty making the Sate to pay compensation to the victim. In this case it is neither the failure nor the dereliction of duty by the police force. Therefore, the question of paying compensation by the respondents does not arise. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners belong to Schedule Caste and they got converted to Christianity and as they remained as Schedule Caste they would have got benefits under SC/ST Act. In this case, admittedly, the petitioners got converted to Christianity on their own. Therefore, the benefits which is available to SC/ST people may not be available to them. Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. smn To 1.The District Collector, Villupuram District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram. 3.The Inspector of Police, Arakandanallur Police Station, Arakandanallur, Thirukovilur Taluk, Villupuram District. 1 cc to Mr.A. Ramalingam, Advocate, Sr. 51073 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 50908 W.P.Nos.23575 to 23578 of 2009 RK (CO) kk 25/8 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/