IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7600 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SEENA TOMY, W/O.TOMY JACOB, AGED 46, FLAT NO.6BC, HEERA WELLMOUNT PALACE, KAWADIYAR SQUARE, KAWADIYAR.P.O., PIN-695 003. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.ANEESH JAMES RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM CITY. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, VANCHIYOOR. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM. 4. SOBHANA NAIR, D/O.R.CHANDRAN NAIR, T.C.29/1045, KUZHIYODU LANE, PALKULANGARA, VALLAKADAVU.P.O. ADV. SRI.V.AJAKUMAR FOR R4 SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN FOR R4 SRI.SIDHARTH A.MENON FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb WP(C).No. 7600 of 201 1 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3644 OF 2006 DATED 24.8.2006 P2: COPY OF PLAINT DATED 19.8.2010 IN O.S.NO.1340 OF 2010 P3: COPY OF I.A.NO.6047 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.1340 OF 2010 P4: COPY OF AD-INTERIM ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 19-8-2010 P5: COPY OF REPORT DATED 13-9-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER P6: COPY EXTENDED ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 9.9.2010 P7: COPY OF PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 18-8-2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P8: COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18-8-2010 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT P9: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 9-9-2010 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER P9(a): COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 9-9-2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT P10: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 6-3-2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT P10(a):COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 6-3-2011 P11: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- R4(a): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING R4(b): COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3952/2006 DATED 13.9.2006 R4(c): COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4878/2006 DATED 17.11.2006 R4(d): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 26.2.2007 R4(e): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.T.P3/BA-466/07 DATED 8.6.07 R4(f): COPY OF NOTICE DATED 11.1.2010 R4(g): COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NOS.1676/2010 AND 1677/2010 WP(C).No. 7600 of 201 1 R4(h): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.12.09 R4(i): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7.1.2010 R4(j): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.1.2010 R4(k): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.1.2010 R4(l): COPY OF REPLY R4(m): COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT BY THE PETITIONER R4(n): COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT R4(o): COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE SECRETARY CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM R4(p): COPY OF THE APPLICATION R4(q): COPY OF THE REFERENCE TO THE COUNCIL R4(r): COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE REFERENCE R4(s): COPY OF THE STAY ORDER //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7600 of 2011-Y ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection against the illegal construction undertaken by her neighbour. 2. It is unnecessary to advert to the details and genesis of the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Suffice it to say that they are owners of adjacent properties. The petitioner has already renovated her portion of the building. The 4th respondent, according to the petitioner, has demolished her portion of the building and is now attempting to undertake a construction in violation of the Building Rules. The first grievance is that the 4th respondent is continuing with the construction in violation of the order of injunction passed by the civil court. It is certainly for the petitioner to go before the civil court and complain that there has been a violation of the order of the civil court. It is unnecessary to permit the police to get W.P.(C) No.7600 of 2011 -: 2 :- involved in that dispute and in the attempt to enforce that order of the civil court. Legitimately the question of enforcement of the order of the civil court and action for violation, if any, of that order must be left to the civil court. We do not hence find any merit in the prayer to afford police protection to the petitioner and to prevent the 4th respondent from allegedly committing violation of the order of the civil court. 3. It is then contended that the 3rd respondent/Corporation has issued Ext.P7 provisional order to the 4th respondent. Consequently, Ext.P8 letter was addressed by the Corporation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Trivandrum. Assistance has not been rendered to the 3rd respondent/Corporation by the police. This appears to be the latter limb of the grievance raised by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that Ext.P7 is a provisional order. The same has been served on the 4th respondent now. The 4th respondent's reply shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent now does not want to press any claim for police protection. Appropriate orders shall be passed after the reply of the 4th respondent is considered and necessary action in accordance with law shall be taken. W.P.(C) No.7600 of 2011 -: 3 :- 5. The 4th respondent has a further submission to make. According to the 4th respondent, action taken in pursuance of Exts.P7 and P8 was challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and Ext.R4(s) order of stay has been passed. According to the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, Ext.P7 order was not served on him and subsequent order dated 10/3/11 issued to him in the same subject matter is challenged before the Tribunal. That order i.e., E6/32805/11 dated 10/3/11 referred to in Ext.R4(s) has not been placed before us. Be that as it may, in the nature of the stand taken by the 3rd respondent, it is unnecessary to delve deeper into that controversy. 6. We are, in these circumstances, of the opinion that if the petitioner has a grievance that the interim order of the civil court is being violated, the petitioner must seek appropriate further directions from the civil court. In so far as Ext.P7 order is concerned, the action thereunder is stayed by ExtR4(s). It is for the 3rd respondent to seek police protection. In either case we are not persuaded to issue any direction under Art.226 of the Constitution now in favour of the petitioner. 7. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But we may hasten to observe that this judgment will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to complain about W.P.(C) No.7600 of 2011 -: 4 :- violation of the order of the civil court or the option of the 3rd respondent to proceed against the 4th respondent in accordance with law. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge