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 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27095 of 2011(J) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- JOSEPH, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.PUNNOOSE, RESIDING AT CHEMMALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KOLANI P.O., THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2. THE ASST.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI, PIN-685505. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685584. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685584. 5. CELIAMMA, AGED 66 YEARS, CHAMMALAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KOLANI P.O., THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT 3022, VRIGHTON, 3RD STREET, BROKLYN, NEW YORK-11235. WP(C).No. 27095 of 2011(J) -2- 6. GEORGE THOMAS, S/O.THOMMY THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLARA P.O., KALLARA VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686088. 7. JOMON @ MUTTOM JOMON, RESIDING AT KAROTTUKUNNEL HOUSE, MUTTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685584. ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SMT.K.S.SUMITHA SMT.LIJITTA G.MATHEW SMT.S.K.SREEKALA SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27095 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/09/11 IN WPC.25442/11. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/10/11 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND OTHERS. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF MC NO.102/11 ON THE FILES OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2376/93 DATED 02/08/93 SRO, THODUPUZHA. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.16647 DATED 02/04/11 ISSUED FROM THE THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 22/09/11 ISSUED FROM THE KSEB. EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE WATER AUTHORITY BILL DATED 22/03/11 RESPONDENTS EXTS:- EXT.R5(1):- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT ISSUED IN MY FAVOUR AND IN THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF MY FAMILY BEARING NO.LA.17/76. EXT.R5(2):- TRUE COPY OF THE PASSBOOK ISSUED BY THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. EXT.R5(3):- TRUE COPY OF THE LEDGER EXTRACTS OF THE SAID RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FROM THE YEAR 1981 ONWARDS AND UP TILL NOW. EXT.R5(4):- TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPT DATED 01/10/11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.27095 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner, a 73 years old gentleman, a retired School Master from Thodupuzha has filed this Writ Petition seeking police protection for his life against harassment by police under the guise of implementation of Ext.P1 judgment of this Court and for ancillary reliefs. The 5th respondent Smt.Celiamma is none other than his own wife. The 6th respondent is the 5th respondent's brother. The 7th respondent is described as a local goonda who is allegedly aiding respondents 5 and 6 in their contumacious acts against the petitioner. The party respondents have filed a joint counter affidavit to which the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. On going through the pleadings it is seen that W. P. C. No.27095 of 2011 -2- there are subsisting disputes between the parties as to ownership and possession over immovable properties. It is seen that the residential property itself has got 2 houses - one main house and an out house. In respect of residence over the main house also there is considerable dispute. Considering the close relationship between the parties, we directed them to be present in this Court today and we explored the possibilities of a settlement of the issues between them. Our endeavour was unsuccessful. 2. Sri.Joice George, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.P.Chaly, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents addressed us in detail on the basis of the pleadings raised by the respective parties. Our attention was drawn to the various materials placed on record by the parties. We heard Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned senior Government Pleader also. We are convinced W. P. C. No.27095 of 2011 -3- that the relationship between the petitioner and the party respondents, particularly the 5th respondent has become really strained and it is noticed that the 5th respondent who was still recently in New York came down to India only recently has already initiated a few legal proceedings against the petitioner. In fact, Ext.P1 judgment was issued by this Court in favour of the 5th respondent who approached this Court claiming protection for her life from the moment she landed at the Kochi Airport during her journey to Thodupuzha and also during her stay here in the home village. This briefly was the relief that we had given to the 5th respondent under Ext.P1. “The 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha, will look into Ext.P2 if he has received the same. He will hold all possible enquiries into the same and it is revealed that there is truth in what has been stated by the petitioner in Ext.P2, he will take such action as is necessary for protecting the life and limbs of the petitioner”. W. P. C. No.27095 of 2011 -4- 3. One of the main grievances voiced by the petitioner is that under guise of implementing Ext.P1 judgment in favour of the 5th respondent, the officers of the police are harassing him every now and then. 4. Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned Senior Government Pleader told us that the accusations of police harassment is not true. Enquiry into Ext.P2 revealed that the dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent is likely to give rise to law and order situation any moment and this was why it became necessary for the police to post police personnel including a Woman Civil Police Officer in the place where the petitioner and the 5th respondent are presently residing. 5. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar, we feel that the relationship between the parties continues to be strained and the situation continues to be tense. We dispose of the Writ Petition issuing the following directions:- W. P. C. No.27095 of 2011 -5- 6. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively the Circle Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha while honouring the directions already issued by this Court under Ext.P1 will keep constant vigil over the property where the petitioner and the 5th respondent resides and will ensure by taking prompt action whenever the same is warranted that the dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents do not give rise to violence and law and order situations. It should be ensured that both the petitioner and the 5th respondent are able to reside in the buildings where they are presently residing peacefully. An immediate enquiry should be conducted by the 3rd respondent into the antecedents of the 7th respondent and if that enquiry reveals that the petitioner's allegations that the 7th respondent is a goonda is correct (an allegation which was very stiffly refuted before us by Sri.S.P.Chaly who told us that the 7th respondent is a second cousin of the 5th respondent who occasionally lends helping hand to the 5th respondent and W. P. C. No.27095 of 2011 -6- that the 7th respondent at the moment is in Italy), needful will be done to ensure that the 7th respondent does not intervene in the peaceful life of the petitioner. The police will be at liberty to claim lawful charges for Civil Police Officers including Woman Civil Police Officer if posted permanently, equally from the beneficiaries. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-