IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6926 of 2010(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- FATHIMA, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.PATHUNNI UMMA, KOMBATH HOUSE, VADUTHALA DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. ABDU, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, KOMBATH HOUSE, VADUTHALA DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. VIJAYAN, AGED 50 YEARS, AALIKAL HOUSE, VADUTHALA DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. ABOOBACKER, S/O.KUNJUMOHAMMED, PILLAKUTTAYIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6926 of 2010-M ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-- “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and sufficient protection to the life of the petitioner free from the harassment and intimidation of respondents 3 to 5 and their henchmen. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the petitioner is able to carry out construction of compound wall, which is sanctioned as per Ext.P2 permit granted by the Municipality.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:-- There is a way situated on the southern side of the property of the petitioner. The said way was created by surrender of land by the owners including the petitioner. Respondents 3 to 5 attempted to widen the said pathway without petitioner's consent. Petitioner is not willing to surrender any more of her land for the purpose of widening WPC 6926/2010 -2- the pathway. Since respondents 3 to 5 forcibly attempted to cut open a pathway, petitioner was forced to move a suit before the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. Ext.P1 is the injunction application along with the order passed by the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad granting injunction. It is stated that, in order to secure the property the petitioner applied to the municipality for permission to construct a compound wall and that the municipality granted sanction after conducting site inspection. Petitioner was proceeding with the construction of compound wall, it is stated. It is alleged that respondents 3 to 5 have threatened the petitioner and her workers with drastic consequences and physical harm if she construct the compound wall as sanctioned. Petitioner alleges that respondents 3 to 5 are not permitting the petitioner or her workers to construct the compound wall on the side of her property. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. After having gone through the writ petition, we are of the view that the petitioner may have to approach the WPC 6926/2010 -3- Civil Court where the matter is admittedly pending. Ext.P1 is an exparte order. Petitioner seeks protection essentially for constructing a compound wall. In so far as the matter is pending before the Civil Court the petitioner is relegated to pursue her remedies before the Civil Court. In regard to the complaint filed before the Sub Inspector of Police the prayer we find is to protect the petitioner to reside in the house and to construct the compound wall. In the light of the facts disclosing pendency of an exparte interim order and the pendency of the matter in the Civil Court, the petitioner is relegated to pursue the remedies open to her before the Civil Court. Without prejudice to the same, the writ petition is disposed of. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS