IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11832 of 2011(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MAMMI HAJI, URANKANDATHIL THADATHIL HOUSE, THENNALA P.O., THARAYIL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR, SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI-676 511. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI-676 511. 6. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUR. 7. ALIKKUTTY, S/O.SEYDALAVI, MANGANNI, THENNALA P.O., TIRURANGADI-676 511. 8. AHAMMADKUTTY, VENKDATHIL, S/O.KOYA, THENNALA P.O., TIRURANGADI-676511. W.P.(C). NO.11832/2011-D: 9. HALASAN THALAPPIL, THARAYIL, THENNALA P.O., TIRURANGADI-676 511. 10. BAVA HAJI, KALATHINKAL HOUSE, THENNALA P.O., TIRURANGADI-676 511. 11. HAMSA HAJI, KOTTUVALA HOUSE, THENNALA P.O., TIRURANGADI-676 511. 12. MARACKAR HAJI, POTHUVATH HOUSE, THENNALA P.O., TIRURANGADI-676 511. R1 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. VENUGOPAL, R7 TO R12 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11832/2011-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.NO.24838/08 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DTD. 18/08/08. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM GOVT. TALUK HOSPITAL, TIRURANGADI DTD. 11/04/10. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE FIR DTD. 18/04/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE R.1. DTD. 17/05/2010. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.15874/10 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DTD. 10/08/2010. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY R.4. IN W.P.NO.15874/10 DTD.01/06/2010. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER'S SON DTD. 12/09/2010. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD ISSUED BY MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE DTD. 13/09/10. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD ISSUED BY GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE, TIRURANGADI DTD. 13/09/10. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE IN CRIME NO.614/10 DTD. 13/10/2010. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.30420/10 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DTD. 10/01/2010. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DTD. 15/01/2011. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE INTERIM INJUNCTION PASSED BY SUB COURT, TIRUR DTD. 06/11/2011. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RDO, TIRUR DTD. 08/03/2011. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DTD. 08/03/2011. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI DTD. 10/03/2011. W.P.(C). NO.11832/2011-D: EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE FIR DTD. 11/03/2011. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TVM. DTD. 24/03/2011. EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE SECOND COMMISSION REPORT DTD. 28/03/2011. EXT.P.20: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DTD. 12/04/2011. EXT.P.21: COPY OF THE FIR OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION DTD. 22/04/2011. EXT.P.22: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 7TH TO 12TH RESPONDENT DTD 29/04/2011. EXT.P.23: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R.2. DTD. 02/05/2011. EXT.P.24: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.5. DTD. 02/05/11. EXT.P.25: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.D.O., TIRUR DTD. 10/08/2011. EXT.P.26: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R.D.O., TIRUR DTD. 10/08/2011. EXT.P.27: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PASSPORT MR.T.YOOSUF. EXT.P.28: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY MR. T. YOOSUF. EXT.P.29: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY MR. T. RAFEEK. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R7.A: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ROAD COMMITTEE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.11832 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioner has again come to this Court with this petition seeking directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 6 to afford police protection to the petitioner against illegal, contumacious, culpable and violent acts on the part of respondents 7 to 12. 2. The petitioner is a person in his 80's, He owns one acre of land. The 7th respondent is said to be the convener of a road committee. Respondents 8 to 12 are also local neighbours evidently acting under the 7th respondent. The petitioner had raised a grievance that respondent No.7 along with others had trespassed into his property and widened a pathway abutting his property without the consent of the petitioner. A contention was raised in defence by the 7th respondent that with the consent of the petitioner the pathway had already widened. The dispute between the parties is about the use of such pathway. W.P.(C).NO.11832 OF 2011 : 2 : 3. This is not the first time the petitioner is coming before this Court. The petitioner came to this Court with Writ Petition No.24838 of 2008 earlier. He had secured Ext.P1 interim order. That petition was filed arraying the Panchayat and its President as parties. Ext.P1 interim order was passed. That writ petition is even now pending without disposal before the Single Bench, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is his further submission that in that petition, the 7th respondent herein has already arrayed as a party. 4. The petitioner came to this Court with another petition seeking police protection and another Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P5 judgment dated 10th August 2010 in Writ Petition No.15874 of 2010 allowed the petition in part and issued directions under Article 226 to respondents 2 and 3 herein to afford police protection to the petitioner, that is for the protection of his person and life. It was made clear that the order will not enable the petitioner to claim any rights in respect of the disputed pathway. 5. That order was passed on 10.8.2010. The petitioner has not so far complained to this Court that there has been W.P.(C).NO.11832 OF 2011 : 3 : any contempt of that order committed by respondents 2 and 3 in this writ petition, i.e. respondents 1 and 2 in Ext.P5. 6. The petitioner had again come to this Court with yet another writ petition claiming directions for police protection. We had occasion to consider that petition and by Ext.P11 judgment dated 10th January 2011 in WPC No.30420 of 2010. that petition was allowed in part to the extent specified. In that petition, a dispute was raised that the boundary of the petitioner's property has to be identified and the revenue officials are not being permitted by the 7th respondent herein to identify such boundary. Accordingly, directions were issued in that writ petition vide Ext.P11 judgment. 7. The petitioner had in the meantime moved the civil court. It is submitted that the civil court has granted the petitioner an interim order of injunction directing maintenance of status quo. The status quo has been duly ascertained by the civil court by deputing a Commissioner, it is further submitted. 8. The petitioner has approached this Court again now. What is his grievance? First of all it is contended that there W.P.(C).NO.11832 OF 2011 : 4 : is violation of the order of the civil court and subsequent trespass into the property of the petitioner to further widen the pathway. Did the petitioner move the civil court complaining about violation of the order of injunction? Admittedly, the petitioner has not done the same. He proposes to do the same, submits the learned counsel. We need only make it clear that the dispute regarding violation of the order of the civil court must be raised by him before the civil court and the civil court must expeditiously come to an appropriate finding as to whether there has been violation of the order of the civil court. We do not think it necessary in the circumstances of this case to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 to resolve that disputed question of fact. 9. The petitioner is not satisfied even with the above observation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding Ext.P5 order granting police protection for the petitioner and his son, there had been attacks subsequently. The petitioner, therefore, contends that there has been violation of Ext.P5 judgment passed by W.P.(C).NO.11832 OF 2011 : 5 : this Court. 10. This contention is stoutly denied by the learned counsel for respondent No.7 and others. They contend that there has been no instance of any attack on the petitioner or his son. According to them, armed with Ext.P5 order of police protection the petitioner and his son are taking law into their hands and it is they, who are creating all the trouble. It is submitted that, at any rte, no further directions for police protection are liable to be granted. The petitioner is evidently convinced that if the complaint of non compliance with the directions in Ext.P5 is properly enquired into, the truth will be revealed. That is why the petitioner is not formally raising any grievance of violation of Ext.P5 order. At any rate, the petitioner, having not complained of any violation of Ext.P5 order, no further directions are necessary in his favour under Article 226, submits the learned counsel for respondents 7 to 12. 11. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that in obedience to the directions issued in Ext.P5, the police W.P.(C).NO.11832 OF 2011 : 6 : had taken all necessary steps to afford protection to the petitioner. A statement has been filed by the Circle Inspector of Police on 3.6.2011 explaining to the court the steps taken by the police to comply with Ext.P5 judgment and the subsequent interim direction passed by this Court in this writ petition on 11.4.2011. According to the learned Government Pleader, the police officials will not be able to remain in the premises of the petitioner all through to afford protection to him. He has been permitted to complain before the police officials in their mobile phones, if any threat is apprehended. The petitioner has not raised any formal complaint of non compliance with the directions in Ext.P5, submits the learned Government Pleader. In these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader submits that no further directions are liable to be issued. 12. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The grievance of the petitioner in a nutshell is that Ext.P5 judgment of police protection granted in favour of the petitioner and his son is being violated and not observed by W.P.(C).NO.11832 OF 2011 : 7 : respondents 2 and 3 herein. We have absolutely no tangible data to come to any such conclusion. Moreover, if there be any such grievance, it is certainly for the petitioner to initiate proceedings in contempt. We are not persuaded to agree that any further directions need be issued by this Court in addition to Ext.P5 direction issued by another Bench earlier. 13. At any rate, we take note of the grievance raised by the petitioner. It is certainly for respondents 2 and 3 to scrupulously comply with the directions in Ext.P5 and afford protection to the life and person of the petitioner. They are certainly not expected to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 7 to 12. Such disputes will have to be settled by the parties by resorting to appropriate proceedings before the civil court. But we have no hesitation to reiterate that the directions in Ext.P5 judgment must be scrupulously complied with by 2nd and 3rd respondents. The head of the Kerala police, the 1st respondent, must also scrupulously ensure that respondents 2 and 3 comply with the directions and that W.P.(C).NO.11832 OF 2011 : 8 : there is no threat to the life and person of the petitioners in Ext.P5. 14. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned Government Pleader for communication for respondents 1 to 3. R. BASANT, JUDGE. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. cl