IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26046 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AZEEZ, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O MUTTATHIL KUNHU MITHIYAM, MUTTATHIL VEEDU, CHNGAMANADU P.O ALUVA-683 578. BY ADV. SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P). RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLENGOD POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. 678001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLEGODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD 678 001. 4. SHABU MATHEW GEORGE, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O JOHN GEORGE, ARYAMKULAM HOUSE, NENMENI, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD 678001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 26046/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. NO.1165/2011 IN O.S. NO.26/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR DATED 27/8/2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26/9/2011 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2(A): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/9/2011 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2(B): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26/9/2011 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2(C): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT 26/9/2011 TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.26046 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who claims to have entered into an agreement for the manufacture of bricks with soil extracted from the property belonging to the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the above agreement the petitioner has been manufacturing bricks and the 4th respondent is now illegally preventing the petitioner from removing the bricks, so manufactured in the 4th respondent's plot, raising untenable contentions. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs; i). To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to afford sufficient police protection to the petitioner for loading the 40,000/- bricks having value of Rs.1,25,000/- which is remaining in the plaint schedule property of 4th respondent. WPC.No.26046/2011 2 ii). To declare that 4th respondent or anybody acting under him has no right to obstruct the petitioner from loading and transporting the 40,000 bricks. 2. Though persuasive submissions were addressed before us by Sri.G.Santhosh Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner, we are sure that we will not be justified in issuing the directions sought for. Admittedly, suits have been filed by the petitioner and the 4th respondent in respect of the dispute between them. The reliefs sought for in this writ petition, in our view, may be sought for and obtained by making appropriate motion before the court which is in seizin of the suits. We dismiss this writ petition, however making it clear that this judgment declining relief shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioner in the suits which are presently pending. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk WPC.No.26046/2011 3