IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6718 of 2010(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.MADHUSUDHANAN, KALIYUVILA VEEDU, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM(KOTTARAKARA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691506. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.. PIN 691506. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM, PIN 691506. 4. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, ALUVILAVEEDU, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM, PIN 691506. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6718 of 2010-L ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-- “a). to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing respondent 1 to take adequate action against the second respondent and third respondent and save the petitioner from the harassment from the said police officials; and b). to direct respondent 1 to take action pursuant to Ext.P4.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:--There is harassment of the petitioner by the policemen under the leadership of second and third respondents. There is no notice served of any petition, it is submitted. It is alleged that there is a petition filed by the 4th respondent and the dispute is that petitioner has made a sale agreement dated 8.11.2009 with the 4th respondent to purchase a lorry. It is stated that the total sale consideration is Rs.3,30,000/- and that after paying an advance of Rs.30,000/- petitioner has taken possession of the vehicle. It WPC 6718/2010 -2- is stated that petitioner is ready to pay the balance sale consideration, but, the 4th respondent is evading to perform the contract without clearing the liability. According to the petitioner, under the agreement the 4th respondent has to clear all previous arrears and liabilities of the vehicle. 3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader, on instruction, would submit that the 4th respondent has filed a petition, and that, being a civil dispute, respondents 2 and 3 will not interfere in the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. We record the above submission of the learned Government Pleader and close this writ petition. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS