IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 33097 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHANKUNTHARSHA, S/O.BADARUDEEN, SHA MANZIL, ELAMPAZHANNOOR, KADAKKAL KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, (RURAL) KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691506 KOLLAMN DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE KADAKKAL, PIN 691536, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL, PIN-691536,KOLLAM DISTRICT 4. SRI.MUHAMMED RASHEED, S/O.ABDUL RAHAMAN, AKKUNNATH PANAYIL VEEDU, ELAMPAZHANNOOR P.O. KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN - 691534. 5. SMT.SALEENA BEEVI, W/O.MUHAMMED RASHEED, AKKUNNATH PANAYIL VEEDU, ELAMPUZHANNOOR P.O. KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691534. 6. MISS.BANA, D/O.MUHAMMED RASHEED, AKKUNNATH PANAYIL VEEDU, ELAMPAZHANNOOR P.O. KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN-691534. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR FOR R4-6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33097 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.20/06(R) ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2; TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/2/2011 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA IN IA NO.196/2011 IN AS 10/11 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3/12/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.33097 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner, who is conducting ARD No.298 at Kottarakkara has approached this court seeking protection directions for his life and limbs as well as for the smooth conduct of ARD No.298 of which he is the authorised distributor. According to him the petitioner was putted in civil litigations in respect of certain other properties including the property situated near to the building in which ARD No.298 is conducted with one Ramdas. Those litigations ended in favour of Mr.Ramdas. But against the decree which was passed in favour of the Ramdas, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara and obtained stay. During the pendency of the stay, Sri.Ramdas conveyed all properties in favour of the party respondents. The party respondents are now creating all sorts of trouble to the petitioner including to the conduct of the ration shop by the petitioner so as to compel the petitioner to settle the issue involved in the appeal in the respondent's favour. W.P(C) No.33097 of 2011 2 2. The party respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein they have denied the allegations. They have stated that they have no intention to cause any injury to the life and limbs of the petitioner. They have also stated that they have no intention at all to obstruct the functioning of the ration shop. But the real intention of the petitioner in seeking police protection is to take the usufructs from the trees that are standing on the properties which are the subject matter of the appeal including the rubber trees. This may not be allowed to be done on the cover of police protection directions. 3. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents as well as Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of issuing the following orders/directions: i) The undertakings in the counter affidavit filed by the party respondents are recorded. ii) If it is noticed that despite those undertakings there is continuing threat to the life and limbs of the petitioner and there is obstruction to the functioning of the ARD No.298 from the part W.P(C) No.33097 of 2011 3 of the party respondents, the petitioner will approach the 3rd respondent and thereupon the 3rd respondent will render adequate protection to the life and limbs of the petitioner as well as for the smooth conduct of the ARD. However, we make it clear that these directions have nothing to do with the properties which are the subject matter of the civil litigation, which is pending before the Kottarakara Sub Court. Any direction in respect of those properties will have to be sought for and obtained from the Sub Court. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab