Balan vs. The Commissioner Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, a small-scale appalam manufacturer, sought a writ of mandamus directing the police to provide protection to his life and family. He had taken loans for his business, which suffered due to the COVID-19 pandemic and storm damage. While seeking insurance claim settlement, he discovered discrepancies in his policy. He subsequently made a representation on May 6, 2026, alleging systemic fraud, fabricated GST registrations, insurance irregularities, and inaction by regulatory authorities concerning City Union Bank. This representation was not considered, leading him to approach the High Court. The petitioner had previously lodged a complaint on March 6, 2026, regarding irregularities, which was forwarded by the police. He also made a representation for police protection following the mysterious death of his friend.

Held

The Court directed the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Police) to consider the petitioner's representation seeking police protection and pass necessary orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court noted that the petitioner had lodged a complaint on March 6, 2026, regarding irregularities, which was forwarded by the police. Subsequently, due to the mysterious death of his friend, the petitioner made a representation for police protection. The Court found that the matter was pending before the Commissioner of Police and thus issued a direction for its expeditious disposal. The Court did not delve into the merits of the allegations of fraud or GST irregularities, focusing solely on the prayer for police protection and the procedural steps taken.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the police respondents to provide 24x7 police protection to the petitioner and his family, considering the petitioner's representation dated May 6, 2026, which alleges systemic fraud, fabricated GST registrations, insurance irregularities, and wilful inaction by regulatory authorities. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that his representation, detailing serious allegations of fraud and irregularities, necessitated police protection for his safety and that of his family. He sought a direction for the police to act on his representation. Revenue's contention: The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner's complaint was received and an inquiry was conducted. However, since the petitioner was seeking 24x7 police protection, the matter needed to be decided by the Commissioner of Police. The complaint had already been forwarded to the Headquarters and was pending before the Commissioner of Police.