Judgment :- The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to offer police protection to the members of the petitioner Association, enabling them to sell the flowers in the Tirukoilur Town, without fear or threat, in accordance with the right conferred on them, under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. 2. In support of the prayer, the petitioner has sworn affidavit which reads as under: " I am the petitioner herein and as such am acquainted with facts of the case. I am the President of Pasumai Thayagam Poo Vyabarigal Sangam. The said Sangam is registered under the Societies registration Act, bearing No.64 of 2009, on the file of the Office of Registrar, Villupuram. I crave leave of this court to refer the certificate of registration as part and parcel of this affidavit. I am filing this writ petition on behalf of the welfare of the members of Pasumai Thayagam Poo Vyabarigal Sangam seeking for a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of writ directing the respondents to offer police protection to the petitioners' members and for consequential orders. 2. I state that there are about 30 families in the T.Kodiyur Village, including myself. All of us eke out our livelihood by selling flowers. I state that the flower cultivation is being done in the village and the yield is taken to Tirukoilur Town for sale. The male members of the family used to carry the flower in bicycle and the female members in the basket for selling it. The income derived from the sale of flowers keeps our kitchen live. I have given the list of names in the annexure to the writ petition. The writ petition is filed in the interest of these members alone. Individually none of the members are capable of approaching the court for redressed. Collectively they pool their resources for fighting out a just cause. 3. The very purpose of forming the Sangam is for the welfare of the T.Kodiyur Villagers who are wholly dependant upon flower vending. When the facts remain so, the members of the petitioners were prevented from selling their yields in the Tirukoilur Town, namely, in and around the Bus Stand and other streets of the town. 3. The very purpose of forming the Sangam is for the welfare of the T.Kodiyur Villagers who are wholly dependant upon flower vending. When the facts remain so, the members of the petitioners were prevented from selling their yields in the Tirukoilur Town, namely, in and around the Bus Stand and other streets of the town. The villagers were prevented by the individuals namely, Pannerselvam, Kumaran, Elumalai, Thirunavukarasu, Manikandan, Sivaraj, Hari and others who also vend flowers in the Tirukoilur Bus Stand. We are not allowed to sell the yields. On questioning such arbitrary act, we were abused physically. The women folks were threatened with dire consequences. Our members were manhandled and the female members were abused in filthy and unparliamentarily language. The female members were literally abused sexually. Aggrieved by such arbitrary acts, we were constrained to move the police seeking protection. Not on a solitary occasion but on various days. The police instead of cautioning the aggressors have advised us to sell our products in the villages. Either they are not aware as to how the merchandise should be dealt with or act in aid of the rowdy elements. Either way, their ignorance or apathy cannot be condoned. It is nothing short of non performance of their statutory duties. They are paid by the tax payers to protect the common man. They have an obligation to enforce law and order. They are not body guards for politicians alone running around their vehicles. 4. We are deeply distressed and disturbed by the inaction of the 2nd respondent. On the complaints lodged a case was registered under Section 147, 294(b), 323 and 506 (i) of the Code of Criminal procedure. Except registration of the complaint no progress had been shown. Though the complaints were received and few of them were registered the 2nd respondent had not taken any steps to curtail the high handed act of the rowdy elements. I have named a few in the preceding paragraph. I am not making them parties to the writ petition as their presence are not necessary for enforcement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner's members. 5. Hence, we have addressed a representation to the DIG, Villupuram regarding the aforesaid complaints. We have also told him that the 2nd respondent is not even showing any progress on the complaint. He had faithfully forwarded the representation to the 2nd respondent. 5. Hence, we have addressed a representation to the DIG, Villupuram regarding the aforesaid complaints. We have also told him that the 2nd respondent is not even showing any progress on the complaint. He had faithfully forwarded the representation to the 2nd respondent. Our grievance remain un-redressed. On 4.3.2011, we contacted the 3rd respondent to offer us protection and to our dismay he had shouted at us calling upon us to do "some other business". When our complaints were not heeded to it had emboldened the aggressors. They have openly started attacking and abusing us in public. On a complaint to the 2nd respondent, he had joined the rowdy elements and chased us out of the bus stand. The members were at loss to know whether the policemen were paid stooges of the rogues and violators of law. 6. The police officials who is expected to be the rescuer and expected of taking steps to maintain order had joined hand with the persons who abuse the process of law and take it into their hands. The complaints, CSR and FIR's are annexed herewith. I crave leave of this court to refer the same as part and parcel of this affidavit. Being dissatisfied and surprised by the ineptitude of the 2nd and 3rd respondent, we have approached the 1st respondent to take steps to protect us. The 1st respondent received our representation on 3 occasions. Those representations remain unanswered. Further, whenever the peace committee is formed by the 1st respondent we have brought it to his knowledge about the aforesaid incidents, the 1st respondent had thrown the ball into the 2nd respondent field, he inturn refused to take any prudent steps to protect us. 7. I state that the right to carry on business is conferred under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Further, the business which we are carrying is not governed under Article 19(2) to (6) of the Constitution warranting its exclusion. It is the duty of the State to ensure that the fundamental rights are enjoyed to its fullest. The 1st respondent, being the representative of the State for the District is duty bound to ensure that the constitutional rights are respected. The 2nd and 3rd respondent being the officials enjoined to perform their duty in accordance with law have breached it with impunity. The 1st respondent, being the representative of the State for the District is duty bound to ensure that the constitutional rights are respected. The 2nd and 3rd respondent being the officials enjoined to perform their duty in accordance with law have breached it with impunity. They have failed to appreciate it is their duty to protect and honour the rights of the citizens. They have identified themselves with a group of elements and prevented others from doing their rightful trade. The respondents have failed to ensure the order and hence we were constrained to move the Constitutional Court seeking protection of our rights conferred under Part III of the Constitution. 8. I state that our rights conferred under the Constitution are violated and hence we are constrained to knock the doors of this court evoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the following. GROUNDS a. That the respondent ought to have seen that the petitioners members are carrying business in selling flowers and as such their right to carry on business is governed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. b. That the respondents ought to have seen that the petitioners members cannot be deprived of selling their yields in the Tirukoilur Town to eke out their lively hood. c. That the respondents ought to have seen that the inaction on their part to refuse protection to the petitioners members to carry on their business peacefully without any fear or threat, had resulted in violation of rights conferred under Article 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution. d. That the respondents ought to have seen that there cannot be any discrimination among the citizens to carry out the any business in the State which is not detrimental to the interest of the State. e. That the respondents ought to have seen that the inaction on their part to offer protection to the petitioners members and to ensure the upholding of Constitutional Right, despite of their repeated requests and complaints had resulted in miscarriage of justice. f. That the respondents cannot deprive the constitutional right to the petitioners members to eke out their livelihood to ensure the right to life as conferred under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution." 3. f. That the respondents cannot deprive the constitutional right to the petitioners members to eke out their livelihood to ensure the right to life as conferred under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution." 3. A reading of the affidavit shows that allegations have been made that the members of the petitioners' association had been prevented from selling the flowers through proper channel around the bus stand and other streets in the town. The petitioner has not placed on record any license which may have been issued to sell flowers in the bus stand in or around it. 4. If there is any specific allegation or grievance of any member of the petitioner association with regard to the illegality committed by any person, the remedy open to him is to approach the Civil Court or Criminal Court in accordance with law. The petitioner has not impleaded any person as party against whom general allegations are made. In absence of the party it is not open to this court to take note of allegations. 5. On the basis of the general allegation referred to above, no police protection can be provided to the petitioner to carry on the business of selling of flowers at the bus stand, without any license by the authority. 6. It is pleaded in the affidavit, that on the complaint filed, a case was registered, if that is so, the remedy with the petitioner is to approach the court dealing with the case, as per procedures laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. On vague allegations, police protection cannot be provided, as criminal offence is to be dealt in accordance with law. This petition is nothing but misuse of process of court. The allegations of the nature levelled in this petition need proof by way of evidence in absence thereof, no notice can be taken in exercise of writ jurisdiction. At the sake of repetition, it may be noticed that no person is impleaded as respondent though serious allegations have been made. No merit. Dismissed. No costs. No costs.