Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1024 (KER)

Gopi, P. S. v. S. I. of Police

2011-09-30

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, R.BASANT

body2011
JUDGMENT : K. Surendra Mohan, J. 1. Student indiscipline has reared its ugly head again. This time, in the campus of the Government Law College, Kozhikode, forcing the Principal of the College to rush to this Court seeking orders for Police protection to restore normalcy. Meanwhile, incidents of violence and destruction of public property have followed. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the situation has been brought under control. But some questions still remain. Who should pay for the destruction of public property that has ensued? Are the petitioners entitled to their costs? But, before we lock horns with those questions, a brief resume of the facts is necessary. 2. The Government Law College, Kozhikode is a very prestigious educational institution that has maintained at all times an impressive track record of academic excellence. An institution that has been imparting legal education of the highest order to succeeding generations of law students who have passed out of its portals over the past more than three decades. The list of its distinguished alumni reads like the who's who of the legal profession. The first petitioner is the Principal of the Law College and the second petitioner is the Secretary of the Parent Teachers Association of the College. They have filed this Writ Petition complaining that, consequent to the student agitation spearheaded by the sixth respondent Students Federation of India (SFI), a situation of lawlessness, chaos and indiscipline has come to prevail in the Law College and its campus, making normal functioning of the College impossible. Consequently, the Principal had to close down the College indefinitely on 28-1-2010. In the Writ Petition, the petitioners sought for the issue of directions to the Police authorities, to provide protection for the smooth functioning of the College. Directions were also sought for recovering the loss to public property that has been caused by the agitating students. 3. The demand of the agitating students was to take back a student of the seventh semester LL.B. course by name Sandeep Kumar, A., who has been compulsorily issued his Transfer Certificate by the Principal and the Staff Council. 4. Shri Sandeep Kumar, A., who has subsequently been made a party to this Writ Petition as the fifth respondent, was a student of the seventh semester of the five year LL.B. course. He was a member of the College Union. As per Ext. 4. Shri Sandeep Kumar, A., who has subsequently been made a party to this Writ Petition as the fifth respondent, was a student of the seventh semester of the five year LL.B. course. He was a member of the College Union. As per Ext. P-3, a first year student complained that he had been beaten up by Shri A. Sandeep Kumar on 16-11-2009 and that he had been subjected to ragging. As per Ext. P-4, his classmates also complained of the very same incident. Since ragging was a criminal offence, the Staff Council of the College reported the matter to the Police and a crime was registered. Sri Sandeep Kumar was placed under suspension. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Staff Council of the College. 5. It is worth noticing, at this Juncture, that Sri Sandeep Kumar had been involved in various other instances of indiscipline to which the attention of the Staff Council had been drawn on previous occasions. One such incident had taken place in January 2009 in which, it was alleged that Sri Sandeep Kumar and a few other students had attacked some third semester students. On the basis of the complaint received, the Staff Council had ordered an inquiry and had constituted an Enquiry Committee for the purpose. The Enquiry Committee, accordingly, conducted an enquiry with notice to all affected parties and found Sri Sandeep Kumar guilty, as evidenced by Ext. P-1. The students involved in the incident, including Sri Sandeep Kumar were warned and told that any similar incident would result in their dismissal from the College. 6. Subsequently, on 5-3-2009, a similar incident of violence was committed by a group of students including Shri Sandeep Kumar. The said incident was also enquired into by a Committee constituted by the Staff Council and as per report dated 30-3-2009, Shri Sandeep Kumar was again found guilty. Since both the incidents had taken place within close proximity of each other, a common show cause notice was issued to the student, as evidenced by Ext. P-2 dated 7-4-2009 requiring him to explain why compulsory Transfer Certificate should not be issued to him. It was in the above backdrop that Sri A. Sandeep Kumar was involved in the incident that is the subject-matter of Exts. P-3 and P-4. As noticed above, the said complaint also involved the offence of ragging. 7. P-2 dated 7-4-2009 requiring him to explain why compulsory Transfer Certificate should not be issued to him. It was in the above backdrop that Sri A. Sandeep Kumar was involved in the incident that is the subject-matter of Exts. P-3 and P-4. As noticed above, the said complaint also involved the offence of ragging. 7. Taking into consideration the totality of all the above circumstances, the Staff Council decided to issue compulsory Transfer Certificate to the fifth respondent. Pursuant to the decision of the Staff Council, the Principal also issued compulsory Transfer Certificate to the fifth respondent. Thereupon, the case of Sri A. Sandeep Kumar was espoused by the 6th respondent Students Federation of India (SFI for short). The SFI launched an agitation against the Principal and staff demanding withdrawal of the disciplinary action initiated and recalling of the decision to issue compulsory Transfer Certificate to Sri A. Sandeep Kumar. However, the Principal and the staff stood their ground and refused to accede to the demands of the SFI. The unrelenting attitude of the Principal and the staff of the college appear to have made the agitating students indignant. They retaliated by resorting to violence, obviously, with the object of putting pressure on the first petitioner. On 27-1-2010, they forced their entry into the Office of the Principal, destroyed a wooden partition that was installed there and ransacked the office, causing destruction of public property. They also confined the Principal and other staff members to the office room demanding withdrawal of the action taken against Sri A. Sandeep Kumar. The Principal and other staff members were rescued after more than five hours, on the intervention of the Police. On 28-1-2010, a group of students of the College again indulged in violent acts, locking up the Principal and other staff members in their rooms. There are also complaints of damage caused to the car of one of the staff members, that was parked somewhere else, outside the College premises. The untoward incidents and violence perpetrated in the College campus were widely reported in the local newspapers. Exts. P-8 to P-11 are copies of the news paper reports containing graphic descriptions of the various incidents. 8. The untoward incidents and violence perpetrated in the College campus were widely reported in the local newspapers. Exts. P-8 to P-11 are copies of the news paper reports containing graphic descriptions of the various incidents. 8. According to the petitioners, though complaints were repeatedly made to the Police authorities as well as the District Collector, they did precious little to control or contain the lawlessness, The Police refrained from taking any action to disperse the students even when the Principal and Staff members were illegally detained in the College. On the contrary, the Police only tried to put forth proposals of compromise for appeasing the students, of dropping all disciplinary action against the fifth respondent. Since the petitioners and other staff members were not prepared to accede to the said course, the lawlessness continued unabated, Exts. P-12 to P-17 are copies of the complaints made by the Principal to the various Police authorities including the City Police Commissioner. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department was also apprised of the situation by Ext. P-17. However, the complaints failed to evoke any effective response or action to bring the situation under control. At the same time, the students, emboldened by the inaction on the part of the Police authorities, started taking out rallies even inside the College Campus and pressurising the junior students to withdraw the complaints made by them against the fifth respondent. In the above situation, left with no other alternative, the Principal had to close down the College on 28-1-2010. In spite of closure of the College, there were protest marches by the students demanding withdrawal of the action taken against the fifth respondent. The said incident was also reported in the news papers. A photo copy of one such paper report is produced as Ext.P-18. 9. The recalcitrant attitude of the students, fuelled by the attitude of total inaction on the part of the Police authorities created a tense situation both inside and outside the campus of the Law College. With the prospect of reopening the Law College thus becoming bleak, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition seeking orders of protection for the opening and smooth functioning of the College. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to the fourth respondent District Collector to assess and quantify the loss caused to the public property and to realise such loss from the persons responsible. 10. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to the fourth respondent District Collector to assess and quantify the loss caused to the public property and to realise such loss from the persons responsible. 10. This Writ Petition was admitted on 10-2-2010. An interim order was also issued directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford sufficient and adequate Police protection to the petitioners' College staff and students, for the smooth functioning thereof, initially for a period of ten days. Subsequently, the order was extended until further orders on 24-2-2010. The interim order is still in force. Meanwhile, on 23-2-2010, the petitioners moved I. A. No. 2632 of 2010 complaining that the students were organizing a convention within the College Campus during College hours, without the permission of the Principal, protesting against what they termed, the adamant attitude of the Principal. They were also alleged to have erected a temporary shed in the College courtyard, proposing to conduct a relay fast. Though complaints as evidenced by Exts. P-21, P-22 and P-23 were submitted, there was no action on those complaints, Since a viva-voce examination was going on, besides valuation of answer papers, the petitioners sought necessary orders for Police protection. Accordingly, a further order was passed on 24-2-2010 by this Court directing that absolutely no demonstration or interference inside any of the class rooms shall be conducted within the Law College. The said interim order is also in force. Pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, the College was reopened on 15-2-2010 and started functioning under orders of Police protection. It is not in dispute that normalcy has been restored at present and that the College is functioning smoothly. However, the damage caused to the wooden partition, furniture and other articles in the Principal's Chamber and other rooms remain to be recouped. The petitioners seek appropriate directions for the above purpose. 11. In answer to the allegations contained in the writ petition, initially a statement dated 8-3-2010 was filed on behalf of the first respondent, pursuant to a direction to file such a statement. According to the first respondent, a crime had been registered against Sri A. Sandeep Kumar as Crime No. 439 of 2009 of the Chevayur Police Station under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act. According to the first respondent, a crime had been registered against Sri A. Sandeep Kumar as Crime No. 439 of 2009 of the Chevayur Police Station under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act. He was arrested on 10-2-2010 and a charge-sheet was filed against him, The matter, according to the first respondent, was pending before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Kozhikode. The first respondent has further stated that the student was suspended from the college with effect from 19-11-2009 and had been directed not to enter the college and hostel without the permission of the Principal during the period of suspension. Subsequently, on 18-12-2009, another crime was registered as Crime No. 469 of 2009 under Sections 341,323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC against Sri Sandeep Kumar and three others on the allegation that they had assaulted a student who had come to participate in the B-Zone Inter-Collegiate competition held at the Government Law College, Kozhikode. 12. Later on, in January 2010, a group of students belonging to the SFI (6th respondent), unlawfully assembled and wrongly confined the Principal to his office room and later committed trespass into the said office room and destroyed the furniture and other office equipments. The said incident occurred on 28-1-2010 and Crime No. 34 of 2010 of Chevayur Police Station was registered under Sections 143, 147, 342, 353 and 332 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PDPP Act' for short). About 30 students were included as accused in the case out of whom, ten students were arrested on the spot and produced before the Magistrate's Court who later remanded them to judicial custody. In the wake of the untoward incidents and lawlessness, the college was closed down by the Principal. 13. The college was reopened only on 15-2-2010, pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court. According to the first respondent, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the Police had been granting sufficient and adequate Police protection to the Principal, members of the staff and the students of the College who wanted to attend the classes. 13. The college was reopened only on 15-2-2010, pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court. According to the first respondent, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the Police had been granting sufficient and adequate Police protection to the Principal, members of the staff and the students of the College who wanted to attend the classes. It is further stated that about 15 Policemen headed by the Sub Inspector of Police were posted in the college campus, for ensuring the smooth functioning of the college. 14. While so, on 24-2-2010, a rally was conducted by the SFI, Kozhikode District Committee to the Law College premises seeking revocation of the disciplinary action initiated against the fifth respondent. The rally was intercepted by the Police at the gates of the Law College and the agitators were dispersed without any untoward incident. Thereafter, on 25-2-2010, a conference was convened by the District Collector in which the representatives of the students, staff, parents and other students organizations had participated. It was decided at the conference that the entire dispute be referred to the appellate authority (Syndicate of the Calicut University) for a decision in the matter regarding the suspension of A. Sandeep Kumar. Till then, all the agitations carried on in the college campus were decided to be withdrawn. The said decision was accepted by all the parties who attended the conference. On the basis of the said decision, the agitation was withdrawn and the college started functioning smoothly. The Principal of the college has informed the first respondent by Ext. R-1(a), letter dated 4-3-2010 that the college was functioning smoothly. The first respondent further assured this Court that in the event of any untoward incident in the college, the Police would render effective and adequate Police protection, as may be requested for by the Principal. On the basis of the above submission, the first respondent sought for the dismissal of this writ petition. 15. Subsequently, a counter-affidavit dated 29-3-2010 has also been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, reiterating the statements made by the first respondent in his statement referred above. The first respondent himself has sworn to the counter-affidavit also. On the basis of the above submission, the first respondent sought for the dismissal of this writ petition. 15. Subsequently, a counter-affidavit dated 29-3-2010 has also been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, reiterating the statements made by the first respondent in his statement referred above. The first respondent himself has sworn to the counter-affidavit also. In the counter-affidavit, a contention has been taken that, no relief as sought for in the writ petition could be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with respect to the damage caused to the public property due to the violent acts of the agitating students. According to the respondents, since an offence u/s 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act has been alleged against the students, a report from the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings Subdivision, Kozhikode had been called for, for assessing the damage caused to the public property. The same has been valued at Rs. 3071/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Seventy One only). The calculation of valuation made by the Assistant Executive Engineer and the covering letter forwarding the same to the first respondent have been produced as Ext. R-1(b). 16. A separate counter-affidavit dated 29-6-2010 has been filed by the fourth respondent wherein, it is pointed out that Crime No. 34 of 2010 of Chevayur Police Station has been registered against the students u/s 3 (2)(e) of the PDPP Act as well as the other provisions of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with the destruction of public property. The Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings Subdivision, Kozhikode had assessed the damage caused and has fixed the total value of the damaged articles at Rs. 3071/-. Since no objection whatsoever has been raised by anyone including the petitioners against the assessment so made, such quantification can be considered to be final and beyond dispute. He has also stated that appropriate legal action would be initiated against the offenders after consultation with the competent authorities. 17. A common counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 6. The said counter-affidavit dated 6-1-2011 has been sworn to by the fifth respondent. According to the fifth respondent, the conduct of the petitioners in filing this writ petition, without initially making them parties to the same is vitiated by "mala fides and dishonesty" on the part of the petitioners. The said counter-affidavit dated 6-1-2011 has been sworn to by the fifth respondent. According to the fifth respondent, the conduct of the petitioners in filing this writ petition, without initially making them parties to the same is vitiated by "mala fides and dishonesty" on the part of the petitioners. In the counter-affidavit, respondents 5 and 6 have taken a stand of total denial of all the allegations contained in the writ petition. According to respondents 5 and 6, the fifth respondent has only been victimized for participation in a hunger strike, that was launched by the students against oppressive and discriminatory treatment meted out to a group of students by the Principal and some of the members of the teaching faculty. They had also raised their voices against the mass failure of students in the University examinations due to non-conduct of internal assessments. Subsequently, the hunger strike had been withdrawn on the assurance of the authorities to modify the syllabus and to improve the examination system. According to the fifth and sixth respondents, they had not indulged in any acts of indiscipline or violence as alleged by the petitioners. On the contrary, the fifth respondent is only a victim of the atrocities of the Principal and staff of the college. The various allegations regarding destruction of public property, confinement of the Principal and staff members to their office room and other incidents of violence are denied. According to the fifth respondent, he had made a complaint before the Students Grievance Cell of the University of Calicut and the said authority has directed the college authorities to retain the fifth respondent in the college. They also denied any responsibility for closure of the college by the Principal. According to respondents 5 and 6, Police assistance or protection is not at all necessary for the smooth functioning of the college. Therefore, they contend that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 18. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners Mr. Sivan Madathil, the learned Government Pleader Mr. T.K. Vipindas as well as Sri P.V. Surendranath, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6. Arguments have been advanced in detail by the counsel on the various aspects of the case, placing reliance on the relevant provisions of law and the decisions on the point. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. 19. T.K. Vipindas as well as Sri P.V. Surendranath, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6. Arguments have been advanced in detail by the counsel on the various aspects of the case, placing reliance on the relevant provisions of law and the decisions on the point. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. 19. Though respondents 5 and 6 have adopted a stand of total denial of even the alleged incidents of violence, the basic facts are all beyond dispute. The various instances of violence made mention of in the writ petition are substantiated not only by the newspaper reports, but also by the statements and counter-affidavits of the official respondents in this case. It cannot be disputed that crimes have been registered and are pending adjudication on the basis of the more serious incidents. The sequence of events is clearly made out and the incidents are fairly well established by the pleadings and the documents produced in this case. 20. The action initiated by the first petitioner and the staff of the college against the fifth respondent was not on the basis of an isolated or single incident. The build up to the final punishment is clearly discernible from the sequence of events. In January 2009, the incident that is the subject-matter of the first complaint against the fifth respondent, occurred. A group of students led by the fifth respondent attacked some Third Semester students. The victims complained to the Principal, who constituted a Committee consisting of some of the staff members to enquire into the incident. The enquiry found Sri A. Sandeep Kumar guilty as per Ext. P-1. 21. The second incident took place on 5-3-2009, when a similar incident of violence as in the first case was committed by the fifth respondent and others. On the complaint of the victims, the Principal again constituted a Committee of staff members to enquire into the incident. The report of the enquiry again found the fifth respondent guilty. It is to be noticed that the second enquiry was conducted by a committee constituted of two different staff members of the college. 22. The third incident involved infliction of hurt on Sri Mohammed Salih, a student of the first year LL.B. Course on 16-11-2009. He also alleged in his complaint dated 16-11-2009 that he was subjected to ragging by the fifth respondent. 22. The third incident involved infliction of hurt on Sri Mohammed Salih, a student of the first year LL.B. Course on 16-11-2009. He also alleged in his complaint dated 16-11-2009 that he was subjected to ragging by the fifth respondent. Since the fresh complaint involved an offence of ragging, the matter was reported to the Police authorities and an enquiry committee comprising of two different staff members was constituted. The said enquiry also found the fifth respondent guilty. Though the fifth respondent has put forward a case that the action taken against him were all vitiated by mala fides, there is absolutely no evidence or material to support the said contention. As already noticed above, three separate enquiries were conducted by the Principal by constituting three different enquiry committees comprising of different staff members. The fifth respondent was found guilty in all the three enquiries. If the allegation of the fifth respondent is to be accepted, the entire teaching staff of the college should be presumed to be inimical towards him. One fails to understand why the entire teaching staff of the Law College should be inimical to the fifth respondent, a student of the college. At any rate, there are absolutely no materials before us to Justify such a conclusion. It is clear that the allegation regarding victimisation made in his counter-affidavit by the fifth respondent is only an afterthought made for the first time before this Court. 23. We notice that Ext. P-7 show cause notice issued by the Principal to the fifth respondent narrates the various incidents and proceedings leading up to the imposition of the punishment of ouster from the college on the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent has not chosen to reply to the said show cause notice. Nor has the fifth respondent a case in his counter-affidavit that Ext. P-7 had not been served on him as stated by the first petitioner. The statements made in Ext. P-7 which is a contemporaneous document, issued at a time when this writ petition was not even in the contemplation of the parties, can certainly be relied upon to determine the truthfulness of the contentions raised by the fifth respondent. In view of the above, we have no doubt in our minds that the narration of events contained in the show cause notice issued to the fifth respondent on 28-1-2010, evidenced herein by Ext. In view of the above, we have no doubt in our minds that the narration of events contained in the show cause notice issued to the fifth respondent on 28-1-2010, evidenced herein by Ext. P-7 can be accepted as the correct state of affairs. We have, therefore, no doubt in our minds that it was the acts of indiscipline perpetrated by the fifth respondent, in spite of the earlier warnings and light punishments imposed on him, that precipitated the entire chain of lawless incidents that followed. Therefore, the fifth respondent has to be held responsible for the consequences of such lawlessness also. 24. The sixth respondent is an organization of students, which has strong political affiliations. It is said to function as the students' wing of a prominent Political Party. It cannot be said to be unreasonable to expect an organization of the strength and support of the sixth respondent to act in a responsible manner. If the sixth respondent were reasonable and responsible, it would certainly have taken the fifth respondent to task for indulging in violent and lawless acts including ragging, which is a crime. Instead, obviously, for the reason that the fifth respondent was a functionary of the organization and a member of the college union holding the post of College Editor, the sixth respondent decided to support the lawlessness by espousing his acts. An agitation was launched involving the other students of the College who were members of the sixth respondent demanding of the Principal and the staff of the college to stop all action against the delinquent student. We notice with anguish that respondents 1 to 4 who are the persons responsible for maintaining law and order were also only feigning concern, but actually perpetrating the lawlessness by their inaction. We are very sorry to note that the various complaints made by the first petitioner--Principal failed to evoke any response from them, obviously, because of the clout of respondents 5 and 6. It is the resultant situation that has forced the Principal to approach this Court for orders of Police protection to run his college. 25. The various instances of lawlessness that followed are a consequence of the lack of timely action on the part of respondents 1 to 4. Damage to public property also resulted as a consequence, creating a helpless situation in which the Principal had to close down the college on 28-1-2010. 25. The various instances of lawlessness that followed are a consequence of the lack of timely action on the part of respondents 1 to 4. Damage to public property also resulted as a consequence, creating a helpless situation in which the Principal had to close down the college on 28-1-2010. Pursuant to the interim order issued by this Court, affirmative action was initiated by the Police authorities. Immediately, the situation was brought under control and the college was reopened on 15-2-2010. Therefore, it is clear that prompt action on the part of the Police authorities could have certainly averted the untoward incidents that took place and that lack of timely action on the part of the Police authorities only emboldened the agitators to indulge in the violent incidents. From the foregoing, it is clear that the responsibility for the lawlessness and violence has to rest squarely on respondents 5 and 6 and respondents 1 to 3, who by their inaction, facilitated such acts. The consequence has been loss of peaceful atmosphere in the college campus and the casualty has been student discipline and academics. Loss to the public exchequer has also been caused by the damage to public property. 26. Who should pay for the damage that has been caused? Should the innocent public be mulcted with the cost of the damaged property? Can the loss that has ensued be condoned as the inevitable consequence of a student agitation? Or should the persons responsible be brought to account for the loss caused? 27. What we have noticed above has been a common phenomena in our State. We have been familiar with the acts of vandalism committed by agitating protesters by burning buses, ransacking public offices and destroying valuable items of public property. Even when the loss so caused was estimated to run into crores of rupees, no responsibility for such loss could be fixed on anyone and the innocent public was left to shoulder the burden in silence and despair. Though the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act for short) had been enacted and had received the assent of the President on 16-3-1984, little had been done to give effect to the provisions of the Act or to enforce the mandate thereof to recoup the loss caused to public property. Though the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act for short) had been enacted and had received the assent of the President on 16-3-1984, little had been done to give effect to the provisions of the Act or to enforce the mandate thereof to recoup the loss caused to public property. As a consequence, the situation continued un-remedied even in situations where the persons responsible were very much available before the authorities. It was in the above circumstances that the Apex Court, in Destruction of Public and Private Properties Vs. State of A.P. and Others, took serious note of the various instances of large scale destruction of Public and Private Properties in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like and suo motu proceedings were initiated to look into the situation. The Court appointed two committees, one headed by a Retd. Supreme Court Judge, Justice K.T. Thomas and the distinguished Senior Advocate and on the basis of the reports obtained from the said Committees, the Supreme Court issued directions for the effective implementation of the provisions of the PDPP Act. Finding that there was lack of guidelines for pursuing proceedings under the Act, the Supreme Court has laid down necessary guidelines in paragraph 15 of the said Judgment. We extract paragraph 15 below for clarity of reference. 15. Finding that there was lack of guidelines for pursuing proceedings under the Act, the Supreme Court has laid down necessary guidelines in paragraph 15 of the said Judgment. We extract paragraph 15 below for clarity of reference. 15. In the absence of legislation the following guidelines are to be adopted to assess damages: (I) Wherever a mass destruction to property takes place due to protests or thereof, the High Court may issue suo motu action and set up a machinery to investigate the damage caused and to award compensation related thereto; (II) Where there is more than one State involved, such action may be taken by the Supreme Court; (III) In each case, the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, appoint a sitting or retired High Court Judge or a sitting or retired District Judge as a Claims Commissioner to estimate the damages and investigate liability; (IV) An assessor may be appointed to assist the Claims Commissioner; (V) The Claims Commissioner and the assessor may seek instructions from the High Court or the Supreme Court as the case may be, to summon the existing video or other recordings from private and public sources to pinpoint the damage and establish nexus with the perpetrators of the damage; (VI) The principles of absolute liability shall apply once the nexus with the event that precipitated the damage is established; (VII) The liability will be borne by the actual perpetrators of the crime as well as the organisers of the event giving rise to the liability to be shared, as finally determined by the High Court or the Supreme Court as the case may be; (VIII) Exemplary damages may be awarded to an extent not greater than twice the amount of the damages liable to be paid; (IX) Damages shall be assessed for: (a) damages to public property; (b) damages to private property; (c) damages causing injury or death to a person or persons; and (d) cost of the actions by the authorities and Police to take preventive and other actions; (X) The Claims Commissioner will make a report to the High Court or the Supreme Court which will determine the liability after hearing the parties. 28. 28. It is clear from the above that the mandate of the PDPP Act to fix responsibility on the persons who had organized the protest or agitation and to make them liable for recouping the damage caused to public property is a solemn duty cast on all the authorities charged with enforcement of the law. In view of the above legal position, we have no doubt in our minds that this Court in exercise of the Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has ample powers to assess, quantify and fix the liability for the loss caused to public property as well as to recover the same. However, the learned Government Pleader points out that a crime has already been registered as Crime No. 34 of 2010 of Chevayur Police Station, which is pending adjudication before the Judicial Magistrate's Court Kozhikode. Therefore, any assessment, quantification or fixing of responsibility for the loss caused to public property at this stage would have an adverse impact on the enquiry that is in progress in the said case. In view of the fact that the Judicial Magistrate has ample powers to recover such loss caused to public property u/s 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, we refrain from undertaking the said exercise of assessment, quantification and fixation of responsibility for the loss caused to public property, in this case. 29. The Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Buildings Subdivision, Kozhikode has assessed and quantified the loss caused to the public property, as evidenced by Exts. R-1(a) and R-1(b). However, since the criminal case relating to the said incident is still pending, the loss would have to be quantified again, taking into account the cost escalation also, as and when the criminal proceedings come to a close. Liability for such loss would also have to be fixed by the Court, in the said proceedings. Therefore, we express no opinion either on the quantum or on the responsibility for such damage, in these proceedings. We leave the said aspects open, to be determined in the criminal case that is pending. 30. It would be uncharitable, if we do not express our deep appreciation for the forthrightness, dedication and sincerity of the first petitioner, Principal of the Law College. We leave the said aspects open, to be determined in the criminal case that is pending. 30. It would be uncharitable, if we do not express our deep appreciation for the forthrightness, dedication and sincerity of the first petitioner, Principal of the Law College. His conduct in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, undaunted by the non co-operation of respondents 1 to 4, for no personal benefit of his own, but for the good of the College and the student community, deserves loads of appreciation. We place on record our deep appreciation for his conduct. At the same time, the conduct of respondents 5 and 6, that has driven the Principal of the Law College and the Secretary of the Parent Teachers Association of the College to file this writ petition has to be deprecated. In the fitness of things, the petitioners should not be left to spend out of their pockets to enforce the law and to espouse the cause of the student community. Therefore, we hold that they are entitled to the costs of this litigation, which we fix at Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) which shall be paid by respondents 5 and 6 jointly. 31. In view of the above, this writ petition is ordered as follows: (1) This Writ Petition is allowed. The interim order that is in operation in this writ petition shall continue to remain in force with the only modification that protection shall be provided by respondents 1 to 4 henceforth, only as and when such protection is sought for by the first petitioner in writing. (2) The petitioners shall be entitled to the costs of this litigation which we quantify and fix at Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) which amount shall be paid jointly by respondents 5 and 6 within a period of four weeks from today.