IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28278 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM, BRANCH NO.85, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI P.O. RANNI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR/CHAIRMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, P.R.AJAYAKUMAR, S/O.T.K.RAGHAVAN, AGED 45 YEARS, OLIKKAL HOUSE. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SURENDRA PANICKER, S/O.A.K.GOPALAN, PULIPPRA CHARIVIL, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI P.O. VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE. 2. P.K.GANGADHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, SREEJA VILASOM, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI P.O. VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE. 3. D.OMANAKUTTAN, S/O.P.K.DAMODARAN, OLIKKAL, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI P.O. VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE. 4. E.V.ANILKUMAR, S/O.E.N.VASU, EATTICKAL HOUSE, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI P.O., VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE. 5. PRASAD.E.R.,S/O.RAJANKUTTY, EROLICKAL HOUSE, EATTICKAL KIZHAKKETHIL, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI P.O., VADASSERIKARA. 6. T.R.SAJEEVAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, VELUTHALAKUZHIYIL, (THEKKECHARUVIL HOUSE) ADICHIPUZHA P.O., RANNI, PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE. 7. E.R.DIVAKARAN, S/O.KURUMBI, EROLICKAL HOUSE, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI P.O., VADASSERIKARA. 8. DEVARAJAN, S/O.NANU, PUNNAMOOTTIL HOUSE, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI P.O. VADASSERIKARA. 9. P.K.NADARAJAN, S/O.JANARDHANAN, RAJAN NIVAS, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI P.O. 10. K.S.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, VELUTHALAKUZHIYIL, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI P.O. 11. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI POLICE STATION, RANNI. 12. S.I. OF POLICE, RANNI POLICE STATION, RANNI. 13. DYSP OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DYSP, THIRUVALLA. ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX FOR R1 TO 10 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R11 TO R13 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX in W.P.(C)No.28278/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.7.08 BY THE ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA IN C.M.A.43/08. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.9.2008 ON I.A.NO.1240/08 IN O.S.NO.157/08 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7.9.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 11TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.9.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 11TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.9.08 TO THE 13TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R1(A): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 11.4.08 ON I.A.NO.688/08 IN O.S.NO. 264/08 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI. EXT.R1(B): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF I.A.NO.987/08 SEEKING TO REVIEW EXHIBIT P1 ORDER FILED BEFORE THE ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.R1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.46/08 REGISTERING VALIYAKULAM KSHETRASAMATI AND LIST OF ITS OFFICE BEARERS. EXT.R1(D): TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.6.08 FILED IN CMA.43/08 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURTL, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.R1(E); MANUSCRIPT OF FIR IN CRIME NO.446/08 OF RANNY P.S. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.28278 OF 2008 N ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the Administrator of a branch of SNDP Yogam at Valiyakulam at Ranny. Respondents 1 to 10 are local people and members of the Yogam. Since they caused obstruction to the functioning of the petitioner as the Administrator of the Yogam, he filed O.S.No.157/08 before the Munsiff's Court, Ranny. His application for interim injunction was declined by the said court. Therefore, the petitioner moved the appellate court. The said appeal was allowed by Exhibit P1 order in C.M.A.No.43/2008 dated 14.7.2008. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “ In the result, the C.M.A. is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Munsiff in I.A.291/2008 in O.S.157/2008 in part, restraining the defendants from effecting any further construction in the plaint schedule property without the written consent of the plaintiff. Further, they are restrained from interfering with the administration of the temple by the plaintiff. So also they are restrained from conducting any special poojas without W.P.(C)No.28278/08 -2- the written consent of the plaintiff, represented by the administrative committee, chairman, P.R.Ajayakumar. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case both parties are directed to bear their respective costs.” The petitioner, thereafter, moved the Munsiff's Court seeking necessary police assistance to enforce the said order. The said I.A. was allowed by Exhibit P2 order dated 6.9.2008. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “ In the result, this I.A. is allowed. The C.I. of Police, Ranny is directed to provide necessary police assistance to the plaintiff for the functioning of the temple and to enforce the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Addl.District Court in C.M.A.43/2008. No order as to costs.” On the next day itself, the petitioner filed Exhibit P3 petition before the Circle Inspector of Police, Ranny, the 11th respondent herein. In the said representation at paragraph 2, he has stated that he is apprehending that the party respondents may interfere with his functioning as Administrator. They have interfered with the same earlier and therefore he prayed for extending necessary protection to him in terms of Exhibit P2 order. He filed Exhibit P4 representation again before the Circle Inspector of Police on 18.9.2008. The apprehension voiced by him in Exhibit P3 was W.P.(C)No.28278/08 -3- repeated in Exhibit P4 also. It was followed by Exhibit P5 representation before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla on 19.9.2008. In that representation also, he pointed out his apprehension regarding the interference by the party respondents in his functioning as Administrator. Alleging that respondents 11 to 13 did not extend any protection to him on the basis of the request made by him in those representations, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs. “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 12th and 13th respondents to grant adequate and effective protection to the petitioner as directed by the civil court in Exhibit P2 order. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 13th respondent to take appropriate proceedings against the 11th respondent for not obeying the court order in its corrective perspective.” 2. The 11th respondent has filed a statement denying the allegations of the petitioner. According to the said respondent, the party respondents have not violated the orders of the civil court. They were summoned and appraised of the situation arising out of the order of the civil court. They are law abiding citizens and have not tried to disobey the orders of the court. W.P.(C)No.28278/08 -4- 3. Respondents 1 to 10 have filed a counter affidavit. They also denied the allegations of the petitioner in the Writ Petition that they have violated the directions of the civil court. They also pointed out that the petitioner does not have any such case in his representations before the police and only his apprehension is voiced in them. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 10 undertook that they have no intention whatsoever to disobey the directions in Exhibit P1 order of the civil court. The learned counsel also pointed out that the said respondents have moved the District Court by filing Exhibit R1(b) petition seeking review of Exhibit P1. Substantial grounds have been raised in that review petition. 4. The petitioner gets cause of action to approach this Court when the official respondents do not obey the direction of the civil court in Exhibit P2. Going by the averments in Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 which were filed after the passing of Exhibit P2 order, we notice that there is no such averment in them that the party respondents herein have violated the orders of the civil court. He has voiced only apprehension. The police is bound to take action as per Exhibit P2, if there is any violation of Exhibit P1 order by the respondents therein. The police cannot be blamed for not taking action based on the apprehension voiced by the petitioner. So, in view of the above facts, we are of the view that there is no cause of action for the petitioner to move this petition for police W.P.(C)No.28278/08 -5- protection. Accordingly, it is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach this Court again, if any cause of action actually arises, in future. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn