IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10376 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, KANNUR BRANCH, IMA BUILDINGS, TALAP, KANNUR, KERALA-670002, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR.VILASINI DEVADAS, RAJESWARI HOSPITAL, TALAP, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTHERN RANGE, KANNUR. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNUR. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (STATION HOUSE OFFICER), TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR. 5. DR.P.K.GANGADHARAN NAIR, SUPERINTENDENT, KOYILI HOSPITAL, KANNUR. 6. DR.BALAKRISHNA PODUVAL, PHYSICIAN, A.K.G.HOSPITAL, KANNUR. 7. DR.N.K.SASEENDRAN, KANNUR MEDICAL COLLEGE, KANNUR. 8. DR.A.N.THOMAS, KANNUR UROLOGICAL CENTRE, KANNUR. WP(C).No. 10376 of 2010(V) - 2 - 9. INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, KERALA STATE BRANCH, IMA HEADQUARTERS, ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695029, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR.SREEKUMAR VASUDEVAN. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.10376 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner is the Kannur branch of the Indian Medical Association. There evidently was some dispute between the 2 factions of the said association about the election of office bearers to lead the Kannur branch of the said association. It appears that the respondents had succeeded in an election that was held. But the petitioner did not accept the said election. Under rules to govern their relationship within the organisation, a Tribunal was constituted and the Tribunal has given its finding. The finding is said to be in favour of the petitioner. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not acting in accordance with the decision/direction of the said Tribunal. The respondents continue to be in possession. The petitioner placed all the relevant facts before the police and wanted assistance of the police to get possession and management restored to them. The police did not accept the said request. The petitioner has come running to this Court with this petition W.P(C) No.10376 of 2010 2 to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the police to enforce the decision of the Tribunal and the orders passed by the Tribunal. 2. We are not satisfied that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction deserves to be invoked. Essentially there is a civil dispute between the parties. The respondents are admittedly in possession. Instead of approaching the civil court duly constituted, the petitioner has rushed to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce the decision of a Tribunal constituted as per the rules governing the relationship inter se between the branches, members etc. We are not persuaded to agree that there is any reason for this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has an efficacious remedy in accordance with law. The petitioner must approach the civil court to enforce its rights if any and to reclaim possession from the respondents. Such complicated questions of fact and law cannot be resolved in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. W.P(C) No.10376 of 2010 3 3. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/