Kerala High Court
Principal vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 1 August, 2012
Bench: K.M.Joseph, K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012/10TH SRAVANA 1934
WP(C).No. 16814 of 2012 (B)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. PRINCIPAL,
SREENARAYANA ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE
KEDAMANGALAM, NORTH PARAVUR.
2. THE MANAGER,
SREENARAYANA ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE
KEDAMANGALAM, NORTH PARAVUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.GANGESH
SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, NORTH PARAVUR
ERNAKULAM-683 512.
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE CI OF POLICE
NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, NORTH PARAVUR
ERNAKULAM-683 512.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. AKHIL BHARATHIYA VIDYARTHI PARISHATH
(ABVP), REPRESENTED BY ITS TALUK SECRTARY
SYAM PERUMPADANNA, NORTH PARAVUR
ERNAKLAM DISTRICT-683 513.
5. KERALA STUDENTS UNION (KSU)
REPRESENTED BY ITS TALUK SECRETARY, VISHNUDAS V.S.
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKLAM DISTRICT-683 513.
6. STUDENTS FEDERATION OF INDIA (SFI)
REPRESENTED BY ITS TALUK SECRETARY, ADARSH PATHIL
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKLAM DISTRICT-683 513.
7. ALL INDIA STUDENTS FEDERATION (AISF)
REPRESENTED BY ITS TALUK SECRETARY,ANOOP P.A.
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKLAM DISTRICT-683 513.
R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.R.SYAM KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 16814 of 2012 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT ON 25/6/2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
sou.
K. M. JOSEPH & K. HARILAL, JJ
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C). No. 16814 OF 2012
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this court seeking the following relief :
i) a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to see that members of any student or political organisations do not enter the college campus as part of any demonstration/agitation/protest/political activity and create nuisance within the college campus including disruption of classes.
ii) a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate protection to the life of the members of the management, staffs and students of Sree Narayana Arts & Science College, Kedamangalam, North Paravur from respondents 4 to 7 and their allies.
iii) A writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate protection to the movable and immovable properties of Sree Narayana Arts & Science College, Kedamangalam, North Paravur.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioners are the Manager and Principal of Sree Narayana Arts WP(c). 16814/12 2 and Science College. The allegation is that students from outside under the leadership of respondent No.4 entered the college forcefully and required the first petitioner to disburse the classes alleging that Students Organisation is on strike, on that day for mere political reasons. When first petitioner refused to accept the demand, 4th respondent and his allies forcefully entered the class room and threatened the students. Police aid was sought. There was no positive action. Ext.P1 complaint was given. There is allegation of the happening on the similar lines on 4.7.2012 under the leadership of the 5th respondent. Students Organization do not have any right to enter the college campus, where campus politics is banned by this court. Reference is made to decisions reported in 2003 (2) KLT 582 Sojan Francis Vs. M.G University and 2007 (1) KLT 282 Manager, SNM College Maliankara & Anr. Vs. SI of Police & Ors.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Though notice is served, there is no appearance for party respondents.
4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that whenever protection is sought, protection is being granted and will be granted. We dispose of the writ petition recording the WP(c). 16814/12 3 submission of the Government Pleader that protection will be granted as and when required.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/-
K. HARILAL, JUDGE.
Sou.
// True copy // P.A. to Judge