IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26989 of 2011(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.GOPALAKRISHNAN, THONDANTHARA, ELERITHATTU PO, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJANGAD, KANJANGAD PO, KASARCODE. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION, CHITTARIKKAL PO, KASARCODE. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANOORE POLICE STATION, PAYYANOORE PO,KANNUR. 4. MANIKANDAN ALIAS VIJAYAN, KAVANTHALA PO, KOTTAMALA, KASARCODE. 5. VALSAMMA DO..DO.. 6. MANNUAL, POOVATHOTTATHIL, CHITTARIKKAL PO, KASARCODE. 7. JANARDHANAN NAMPOOTHIRI, MUTTATHI ILLOM, KOROM PO, THALIPARAMPU,KANNUR. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.K.ABOOBACKER R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.26989/2011 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 A TRUE COPOY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.30.12.2010. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPOY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.4.9.2010. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA.1154/2011 IN OS.105/2011 AND THE INTERIM INJUCTION ORDER. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPOY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.4.10.2011. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.4.10.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 26989 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose ,J. Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 seeks further time to file counter affidavit. As sufficient number of adjournments have already been granted we are not inclined to grant further adjournment in this writ petition . The petitioner seeks police protection direction for his life and limbs as well as for cutting and removal of slaughter tapped rubber trees without obstruction from respondents 4 and 5. Sri.P.V.George Puthiyidam entering appearance on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the petitioner had allowed party respondents 4 and 5 for slaughter tapping as well as to cut and remove slaughter tapped rubber trees on receiving substantial amount from respondents 4 and 5. Counsel would place before us a certificate from the Service Co-operative Bank which will reveal that the petitioner availed a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the service Co-operative Bank. Petitioner has now gone back on the WP(C) . 26989/2011 2 agreement. He is not paying remuneration for the work admittedly done by the party respondents. 2. Learned Government Pleader Sri.M.K.Aboobacker on the basis of the instructions from the police submitted that considering the complaint submitted by the petitioner police registered two crimes. He pointed out both these crimes were enquired pursuant to orders passed by the learned Magistrate at Hosdurg and Payyannur. In one crime the 4th respondent alone is the accused and in the other crime respondents 4 and 5 are accused. Sri.Omprakash learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of respondents 4 and 5 that they advanced a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the petitioner is a cooked story. Respondents 4 and 5 forcibly prevented the petitioner from slaughter tapping and from cutting and removing the rubber trees in question. They have no right to do so. 3. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar we are of the view that even if it is true that respondents 4 and 5 advanced amounts to the petitioner they are not justified in obstructing the slaughter tapping as well as cutting and removal of rubber trees by the petitioner. It is open WP(C) . 26989/2011 3 to respondents 4 and 5 to seek redressal of their grievances pertaining to monetary dispute by initiating appropriate civil proceedings. Leaving respondents 4 and 5 to pursue such remedy we are inclined to allow this writ petition. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to afford requisite protection to the petitioner for conducting slaughter tapping work as well as the work of removal of the rubber trees situated on the property made mentioned in Ext.P1 without any obstruction from respondents 4 and 5. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) . 26989/2011 4