IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23692 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R. PRAKASAN, PUTHUVALCHIRA VEEDU, MANAPURAM.P.O, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOCHAKKAL. 2. THYKKATTUCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 3. MOHANAN, KALAPPURACKAL, POOCHAKKAL.P.O, CHERTHALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C). No.23692 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is a resident of ward No.VIII of Poochakkal Panchayat. The 2nd respondent Panchayat is operating a raft service between Mekekadavu and Nerekadavu. The right to conduct the raft service has been given to the 3rd respondent. The operation of the raft is causing damage to the retaining wall of the petitioner. His property is abutting the backwaters. Therefore, he filed Ext.P1 representation before the Panchayat to abate the said nuisance. Thereafter, he filed Ext.P2 representation before the 1st respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, pointing out the above facts. The petitioner submits, on 5.6.2008 a tree worth Rs.3,000/- was stolen from his property. But, the police did not take any action, though the name of the suspects were mentioned in the petition filed before the police. W.P.(C) No.23692/2008 2 2. This writ petition for police protection is plainly not maintainable. If the operation of the raft is causing damages to the retaining wall of the petitioner, the police have no role to play in that. If in a complaint against the persons who have stolen his tree, no action is taken by the police, the petitioner has to move the competent criminal court for appropriate reliefs and not approach this Court in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri vasu v. State of U.P. [2008(1) KLT 724]. Therefore, this Court cannot issue any direction to the police to register a crime and investigate it. In view of the above position, the writ petition for police protection cannot be entertained. Accordingly, it is dismissed. But, it is made clear that the contentions of the petitioner against the respondents 2 and 3 are left open. He will be free to workout his remedy against them before the appropriate forums. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps