Chitra v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.02.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and W.M.P.No.5256 of 2021 Chitra .. Petitioner vs 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3.T.Govindasamy .. Respondents Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner's family to live in her house at No.11A/39, Nellukara Street, Big Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District which was unlawfully demolished by the third respondent contrary to the order of the High Court by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 23.3.2020 on the file of the first and second respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ramesh for Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader assisted by Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Mr.K.V.Babu for respondent No.3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Petitioner has filed this writ petition to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e., the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police, to provide police protection to her family to live in her house, which was unlawfully demolished by respondent No.3.
2. Mr.Babu, appearing for respondent No.3, states that in the place where the structure was demolished, a new building has been put up by his client and his client is in peaceful possession.
3. If the house has been demolished - lawfully or unlawfully, how could somebody reside in the said house, because the house has ceased to exist. In such a situation, how can any mandamus be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide police protection.
4. Counsel for petitioner, in fairness, states that petitioner is residing in another place.
5. Since the house does not exist, the question of granting the relief as prayed for does not arise. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. At the same time, if petitioner fears for her life or the lives of her two children, who, we are informed, are still minors, petitioner may make a fresh application to respondent Nos.1 and 2 for police protection and respondent Nos.1 and 2, after making a risk assessment, shall provide police protection if they are satisfied that there is a risk to the lives of the petitioner or her two minor children.
6. We clarify that we have not made any observation on the suit filed by petitioner and all rights and contentions therein are kept open. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application also stands dismissed.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, C.J.) (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.) 05.02.2025 Index :
Yes/No NC :
Yes/No sasi To 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ ,J.
(sasi) 05.02.2025