Judgment :- Balakrishnan Nair, J. The point that arises for decision in this Writ Petition is whether a person, who is appointed to the office of an organization is entitled to get police protection to assume charge of that office and to administer the organization. In several cases concerning trusts, wakfs, jama-aths and other social organizations, when their administration by the official group is obstructed by the dissidents, Writ Petitions are filed before this Court, praying for a direction to the police to render assistance for administering them and to ward off the obstruction caused by the rivals. In such cases, to buttress the argument for protection, a plea will, normally, be raised that the life of the petitioners is in danger. If the petitioners remain home or go around attending to their normal business, there will be no threat to their life. The alleged threat emanates only when they attempt to administer the trust or the organization concerned. This Writ Petition is one of such cases, though the petitioners have not shown the ingenuity to raise the plea of danger to their life. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The first petitioner is the President of Sree Narayana Samskarika Samithy, which is a Society, registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. The second petitioner is the Administrator of the Sree Narayana Samskarika Samithy, Kollam district committee. The samithy has got district committees in all the 14 districts in Kerala. Those committees are constituted under Rule 25(c) of the Bye-laws of the samithy. The term of the elected executive committee of a district is one year from the date of taking charge by the committee. 3. The petitioners submit that the President and the Secretary of the District Committee of Kollam were ineligible to hold those offices when they were elected in 2005. Their term of one year expired in May 2006. But, they were continuing in office without holding the election. Therefore, the State Committee of the Samithy, by Ext.P1 proceedings dated 112.2007, dissolved the Kollam district committee and appointed Shri. P.V. Sasidharan as the Administrator for the said district. But, because of the obstruction caused by respondents 4 to 7, who are the superseded office bearers of the district committee, he could not assume office. Therefore, the State Committee of the Samithy, by Ext.P1 proceedings dated 112.2007, dissolved the Kollam district committee and appointed Shri. P.V. Sasidharan as the Administrator for the said district. But, because of the obstruction caused by respondents 4 to 7, who are the superseded office bearers of the district committee, he could not assume office. Therefore, the State committee, which met on 03.02.2008, by Ext.P2 proceedings, appointed the second petitioner as the Administrator of the district committee in the place of the said Shri. P.V. Sasidharan. When the said petitioner went to the office of the district committee on 11.02.2008 to take charge, the aforementioned respondents caused obstruction and threatened him. So, he could not assume charge. Therefore, he filed Ext.P3 representation before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kollam, claiming protection to assume charge of office of the Administrator of the Kollam district committee. The protection was sought, pointing out the threat from the part of the party respondents against the assumption of charge by him. Since the police did not extend any helping hand, this Writ Petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs: “i. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, direction respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the 2nd petitioner to take charge as Administrator in compliance of Exts.P1 and P2. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 representation submitted by the 2nd petitioner. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 4 to 7 and their gang not to interfere with the official duties of the 2nd petitioner as administrator of the Kollam district samithy.” 4. We heard the learned counsel Shri. Vakkom. N. Vijayan, for the writ petitioners. This Court has time and again said, while hearing a writ petition for police protection, this Court is only exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If it is shown that the police have failed in their duty and the writ petitioners have got a right to the performance of that duty by the police, this Court will interfere and issue appropriate orders. If it is shown that the police have failed in their duty and the writ petitioners have got a right to the performance of that duty by the police, this Court will interfere and issue appropriate orders. In this case, the police cannot go into Exts.P1 and P2 proceedings, peruse the bye-laws of the Samithy and arrive at a finding that the second petitioner has a right to assume charge as the Administrator and grant protection for the same. If the police do not have such a duty, this court is not justified in issuing any such direction to the police under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of this Court in Thilakan v. C.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 141) has held as follows: “Now-a-days, a Writ Petition for police protection is filed as if it is a suit. The petitioner mentions his right and states about the infringement or attempted infringement of it by the party respondents. This Court is expected to adjudicate their rival claims and on establishing the right of the petitioner, order the police to help him to exercise or assert his right. We are of the view that the said approach sought to be introduced and established in the police protection jurisdiction is unacceptable. While hearing an application for police protection, this Court is exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus. This Court’s power to issue a writ of mandamus to the police is co-terminus with the duties of the police. If there is a failure of duty from the part of the police, this Court will remedy that. In this case, the police have no power or authority to adjudicate on the competing claims of the land owner/his assignee and of the persons in the locality. It is a complex issue and the police cannot be conferred jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue and to render protection to the person, whose right is upheld by them. In this case, the police have no power or authority to adjudicate on the competing claims of the land owner/his assignee and of the persons in the locality. It is a complex issue and the police cannot be conferred jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue and to render protection to the person, whose right is upheld by them. If the police have no duty to adjudicate the rights of the parties, this court also cannot do that in this police protection jurisdiction, where, as we have stated earlier, this Court is concerned only with the failure of duty from the part of the police and the consequential remedial action.” In this case also, the petitioners have produced Exts.P1 and P2 to contend that he has got a right to assume office. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that to satisfy this court about the legality of the claim of the petitioners. Exts.P1 and P2 have been produced. According to him, they will conclusively prove the second petitioner’s right to assume office of the post of Administrator. But, we are of the view that for assuming charge of an office and for running the administration connected with an office, police protection cannot be granted by this Court. For that, the petitioners have to move the competent civil court. The Apex Court, in P.R. Muralidharan Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar 2006 (4) SCC 501, while reversing the Judgment of this Court granting police protection to the life of the petitioner and to administer a trust, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, held as follows: “A Division Bench of the said High Court went into the question as to whether the first respondent was entitled to hold the office of Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan for the purpose of issuing an appropriate direction as regards grant of police protection. The High court opined that the State and the police officials have got a legal obligation to give protection to the life and properties of the appellant upon arriving at a finding of fact that he was entitled to hold the said office. The High court opined that the State and the police officials have got a legal obligation to give protection to the life and properties of the appellant upon arriving at a finding of fact that he was entitled to hold the said office. The High Court proceeded to determine the said purported question in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution and opined: “Respondents 5 and 6 have not given adequate and effective police protection in spite of repeated requests which only paved the way for the contesting respondents and others to take law into their hands and act contrary to the terms of the trust deed. Such being the conduct of the respondents, their assertion that Ext.P3 is fabricated by the petitioner cannot be believed. Going by the facts and circumstances of the case and on going through the materials placed before us, we are inclined to accept the averment made by the petitioner that he is Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathi of the Ashramam.” It was directed: “We have therefore, no hesitation to allow this Writ Petition giving direction to respondents 5 and 6 to give adequate and effective police protection to safeguard the interest of the petitioner being the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathi of the Vadayampadi Ashramam. The petitioner be given effective police protection so as to discharge the function as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathi as per Ext.P1 trust deed for his peaceful residence in the Ashramam …” We have noticed hereinbefore that another suit being OS No.30 of 2002 is pending in the Court of Munsiff. The High Court, despite noticing the said fact, sought to usurp the jurisdiction of the civil court. It, as noticed hereinbefore, determined the contentious issues which were required to be proved in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act. It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so is open to question. It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so is open to question. A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact, which were beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact. Respondent 1 who sought to claim a status was required to establish the same in a court of law in an appropriate proceeding…. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the writ court is wide while granting relief to a citizen of India so as to protect his life and liberty as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution, but while doing so, it could not collaterally go into that question, determination whereof would undoubtedly be beyond its domain. What was necessary for determination of the question arising in the Writ Petition was not the interpretation of the documents alone, but it required adduction of oral evidence as well. Such evidence was necessary for the purpose of explaining the true nature of the deed of trust, as also the practice followed by this trust. In any event, the impleading applicant herein, as noticed hereinbefore, has raised a contention that he alone was ordained to hold the said office as per the bye-laws of the trust. The qualification of the first respondent to hold the office was also in question. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that such disputed questions could not have been gone into by the High Court in a writ proceeding. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is wide and plenary. In a case of this nature, a writ proceeding cannot be a substitute for a civil suit. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly.” In view of the above authoritative pronouncement, the reliefs sought by the petitioners, which are quoted above, cannot be granted. The remedy of the petitioners lies before the civil court. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly.” In view of the above authoritative pronouncement, the reliefs sought by the petitioners, which are quoted above, cannot be granted. The remedy of the petitioners lies before the civil court. If the civil court is satisfied that the second petitioner is entitled to assume charge and the obstruction by the party respondents is unjustified, it can pass appropriate orders in favour of the said petitioner. If its orders are violated, apart from taking action against the offenders, the civil court can address the police also to render assistance to enforce its orders. In view of the above position, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed.