C.Karthikeyan v. The Commissioner Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN C.Karthikeyan Door No.103, Sethupathi Cottage, Golden Nagar, Malumichampatti, Coimbatore - 641 050.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police O/o. The Commissioner of Police Coimbatore.
2. The Inspector of Police Saravanampatti Police Station, Coimbatore.
3. Shanmugavel S/o. Late Natarajan, 11, 2nd Street Poombugar Nagar Saravanampatti Coimbatore
4. Shabeer Ahamed S/o. Abdul Ajish 3287, Gandhi Manager South Coimbatore Coimbatore ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2, particularly the jurisdictional police authorities, to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner for the purpose of carrying out the demolition of the building in accordance with the Demolition Order
Na.Ka.No.2700/2026/H.1 (Va) dated 10-4-2026 issued by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, based on the petitioners representation dated 15-4-2026, and consequently ensure that the said demolition is carried out peacefully and without any obstruction or interference from the respondents or any third parties.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) -R1 & R2
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for the purpose of carrying out demolition of the building owned by him as per the order dated 10.04.2026, issued by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation. 2.The petitioner had purchased the house property by the registered sale deed dated 15.11.2024, registered as Document No.12089 of 2024. Thereafter, the petitioner himself allowed the 3rd respondent to stay in the house property. Though, the petitioner paid the entire sale consideration, the 3rd respondent fails to vacate the premises and attempted to extract more money from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 1st and 2nd respondent to take appropriate action as against the illegal occupation of the 3rd respondent. On the other hand, the petitioner also obtained permission from the authority
concerned to demolish the entire house property. The petitioner was also permitted to demolish the house property on certain conditions. After obtaining the order from the concerned authority, the petitioner once again lodged a complaint seeking police protection to the petitioner while demolishing the house.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the conditions imposed by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, the petitioner necessarily ought to have obtained permission from the police before demolition of the house property.
4.Admittedly, the petitioner had purchased the house property from the 3rd respondent and other legal heirs of the original owner of the house property. The petitioner himself permitted the 3rd respondent to stay in the house property. Now, the 3rd respondent has occupied the subject premises. Therefore, without evicting the 3rd respondent in accordance with law, the demolition cannot be done in the house property. Hence, instead of approaching the Civil Court for appropriate relief, the petitioner simply asked for police protection to the petitioner for demolishing the house property. However, the directions sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kas 5.This writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.
04-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order kas To
1. The Commissioner of Police O/o. The Commissioner of Police Coimbatore.
2. The Inspector of Police Saravanampatti Police Station, Coimbatore.
04-06-2026