- (1.) The petitioners in this WP under art.226 dated June 17, 2011 are seeking the following principal reliefs: "a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their men, agents, servants and assignees to maintain the peace and tranquility in the aforesaid premises of the business. b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the respondent No.5 to protect the lives of the petitioners from any assault, injury and murder."
(2.) The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner, and the seventh respondent (the sole private respondent) is the son of the petitioners.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioners want the private respondent s ejectment from the premises in question. The private respondent has tortured the petitioners. The torture has given them a near death experience. The police, though informed, have not taken any action against the private respondent. Hence a mandamus should be issued. The petitioners remedy, if any, was before the Civil and Criminal Courts. I do not see how the document at pp. 61 and 62 can entitle the petitioners to a mandamus commanding the police to eject the private respondent from the premises in question. The police do not possess any power to eject the private respondent from any part of the premises in question. If the private respondent committed any offence, then, instead of approaching the High Court alleging police inaction, the petitioners ought to have approached the Criminal Court that could examine the question of passing order under s.156(3) or s.190 CrPC. For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs.;