IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35347 of 2009(K) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- NIZAMUDEEN, S/O.SAINULABDEEN, KOILAKALAZHIKATHU VEETTIL, ALTHARAMOODU, KADAIKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADACKAL POLICE CIRCLE OFFICE, KADACKAL. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADACKAL POLICE STATION. 3. SUBRASIDHAN, S/O.SADANTHAN, MINI BHAVAN, MADATHARA P.O. PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 4. SUDHEESH, S/O.VIDYADHARAN, SHIBU NIVAS, MADATHARA P.O. PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. SOMADAS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AROMAL NIVAS, MADATHARA P.O., CHITHRA 6. SUBHASHITHAN @ PODIYAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, CHITRA TEXTILES, MADATHARA P.O., MADATHARA. 7. ANILKUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN, PURAMPOKIL VEEDU, MELEMUKKU, MADATHARA P.O., MADATHARA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW. R3 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI. ALAN PAPALI & ADV. SRI. SOJAN MICHEAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 35347/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - COPY OF SALE DEED EXT.P2 - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 23/11/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS. EXT.R3(1) - TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH REFERRED TO IN THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT. EXT.R3(2) - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CHITHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14.08.2009 EXT.R3(3) - TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 21.04.2009 EXT.R3(4) - TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.335/2009 DT. 03.08.2009 OF KOTTARAKKARA MUNSIFF'S COURT. /TRUE COPY/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.35347 of 2009 K ------------------------------ Dated this, the 22nd day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is running a fancy store. He along with his father and brother, has filed a suit against 4th respondent's brother. One of the prayers in the suit is not to remove a grill fixed by him on the north-eastern corner of the shop room in which they are running the fancy store. In the suit, the petitioner has obtained an interim injunction. He submits that when the Advocate Commissioner visited the property, the respondents 3 to 7 obstructed and a case has been registered against them on the basis of the order of the learned Munsiff as also on the complaint of the petitioner. Now, the said respondents are threatening and coercing the petitioner to withdraw the suit filed by him and they are causing obstruction to his customers coming to the shop. In the above background, he filed Ext.P2 petition before the W.P(C).No.35347/09 - 2 - police seeking necessary protection to run his business. Alleging that the police did not take necessary action on the petition filed by him, the Writ Petition is filed. 2. The respondents 3 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. They submitted that on the eastern side of the shop room of the petitioner there is a pathway leading to the staircase to reach the top of the building on the eastern side. The pathway is in between the said building and the petitioner's shop room. The petitioner has blocked the pathway by putting up a grill on the northern side. Thereafter, they have moved the civil court and obtained an interim injunction. According to the above respondents, even Ext.P1 document produced by the petitioner would show the existence of pathway and they have produced Ext.R3(4), which is the plaint in the suit filed by the petitioner. One of the prayers is to injunct the defendants therein (respondents) from removing the grill put up by them on the entrance to the pathway. The contesting respondents further submitted that they have not caused any obstruction to the W.P(C).No.35347/09 - 3 - customers of the petitioner or his employees. The allegation to that effect are unfounded. They also have undertaken that they will not cause any obstruction to the employees or customers of the petitioner. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner was regarding the alleged obstruction to his employees and customers from the side of respondents 3 to 7. The respondents 3 to 6 have appeared and have given an undertaking before this Court that they will not cause any obstruction to the petitioner's employees or the customers coming to the shop. We record this submission. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Bhavadasan, Judge. DK. (True copy)