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 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8308 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PADMAVATHY AMMA 2. T.K.ACHUTHAN BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 135, RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, SOURIPALAYAM, SINGANELLUR P.O., COIMBATORE-5. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SHRI.T.C. SURESH MENON SHRI. JIBU P THOMAS SHRI. P S APPU SHRI NIMOD A R. SHRI. C.A. ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. 2. BABU, RESIDING AT KOTTAYIL HOUSE, ARYAMBAVU, ARIYUR AMSOM, MEPPADI TALUK, PALAKKAD. 3. VENUGOPAL, RESIDING AT PADIPPURACKAL HOUSE, ARYAMBAVU, KOTTOPADAM, PALAKKAD. 4. SREEKUMAR, RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM, KOTTOPADAM ROAD, ARYAMBAVU, PALAKKAD. 5. NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PORUPPATHU HOUSE, KOTTOPADAM ROAD, ARYAMBAVU, PALAKKAD. G.P., SHRI. T.K VIPINDAS FOR R1 ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C FOR R2-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DT.17.7.1993. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DT.3.9.1977. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT.5.3.2010. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED (DOCUMENT NO.2266/1957) DT.26.8.1957. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R3A ; TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT.5.3.2010 EXT.R3B : TRUE COPY OF CAVEAT PETITION NO.7/2010. // TRUE COPY // K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 8308 of 2010 K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following prayers: i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to afford adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioners from the highhanded action of respondents 2 to 5; and ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider on merit Ext.P3 representation and take appropriate action to curb the menace caused by respondents 2 to 5.” 2. Briefly the case of the petitioners is as follows. The petitioners are owners of a small extent of property in Sy.No. W.P.(C).No. 8308 of 2010 2 84/6A-A1 B1 in Kottopadam II Village, Palakkad District, where they are conducting agricultural operations. Respondents 2 to 5 are trying to force the petitioners for employment. They have openly declared that they will not permit the petitioners to carry out the agricultural operations without engaging them. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent, wherein, it is inter alia stated that respondents 2 to 5 are respectable persons in the locality and they are the committee members of a temple namely 'Sree Pisharikkal Bhagavathy Kshethram'. They denied the allegations made against them. Petitioners are having some property on the southern boundary of the temple and they are trying to trespass into the property of the temple. All efforts made by the petitioners were prevented by the committee members of the temple. Ext.R3(a) is a complaint filed by the committee before the first respondent. They have also filed Ext.R3(b) caveat before the Munsiff Court,. Mannarkkad. According to them, it is a civil dispute. The attempt is to get protection to trespass into the temple property. W.P.(C).No. 8308 of 2010 3 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the party respondents as also the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the party respondents submitted that they have no intention to cause any threat to the lives of the petitioners. We record the said submission. As regards the civil right of the petitioners is concerned, it is for the petitioners to approach the competent civil court. 6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm