IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16374 of 2011(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. CHANDRIKA AMMA, W/O.LATE KESAVANKUTTY NAIR, CHITRA NIVAS, PAZHAYANNUR POST, THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. PRAKASAN @ GOVINDANKUTTY, S/O.CHANDRIKA AMMA, NIVEDHYA HOUSE, KOORATTIKARA, KADAVALLUR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.B.SHAMEERA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SARAMMA, W/O.JOHN JOSEPH, KAKKANADU PARAMBIL HOUSE, ENKAKKAD VILLAGE, ENKAKKAD POST, WADAKKANCHERRY, THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680589 2. CHAKRAPANI P.S., S/O.SIVARAMAKRISHNA VAIDHYAR, THEKKATHARA, KINATHINKARA MADAM, PAZHAYANNUR, THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680537. 3. RAMASWAMY GURUKKAL, S/O.NANU GURUKKAL, N.R.V.MANDIRAM, PAZHAYANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680534. svs ..............2/-... ...2... WPC.NO.16374/2011 4. RAMESH, S/O.P.M.MADHAVAN, VADAKA POTTA, PUTHENCHERIKKAL HOUSE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 680741. 5. SANTHOSH, S/O.SANKARAN, KUMBALAKODE, THADATHIL HOUSE, PAZHAYANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680537. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR - 680 587. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR - 680 587. R1-5 BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH XAVIER R6 & R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 16374/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THAT CONDITIONAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE IN M.C.318/2010 DATED 02/11/2010. P2, P2(a), P2(b), P2(c), P2(d), P2(e), P2(f), P2(g), AND P2(h):COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, PAZHAYANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR THE PETITIONERS BUILDING NOS.XIII/708, XVIII/709, XVIII/710, XVIII/711, XVIII/712, XVIII/713, XVIII/714, XVIII/715, XVIII/716. P3: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAZHAYANNUR VILLAGE DATED 12/01/2011. P4: OPY OF THE ORDER RENDERED BY THE COURT OF MUNSIFF WADAKKANCHERY IN I.A.587/2010 IN O.S.130/2010. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.2603/2010 IN O.S.130/2010 DATED 03/01/2011. P6: COPY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SAID BUILDING. P7: COPY OF THE SAID PETITION MADE BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 21/05 2011 P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 11/11/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(a):COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2010 IN WPC NO.34524/2010. R1(b):COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/01/2011 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR IN MC. NO.318/2010. R1(c):COPY OF THE COUNTER DATED 28/01/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN IN MC NO.318/2011. R1(d):COPY OF I.A. NO.1006/2011 IN O.S. NO.262/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY. svs ..........2/-... ...2... WPC.NO.16374/2011 R1(e):COPY OF C.C. NO.573/2010 BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THRISSUR IN I.A. NO.865/2010 IN C.C. NO.573/2010. R1(f):COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/11/2010 OF CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THRISSUR IN I.A. NO.865/2010 IN C.C.NO.573/2010. R1(g):COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 18/11/2010 GIVEN BY THE EXPERT ENGINEER MR.MARATH VIJAYAN B.SC. ENGG.(M.I.E.). R1(h):COPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS B2-29018/2011 BEFORE THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER, WADAKKANCHERRY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.16374 of 2011-V ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioners have come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 6 and 7 to afford protection to the petitioners for execution of Ext.P1 conditional order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is submitted that respondents 1 to 5 are raising illegal obstructions against the attempt of the petitioners to comply with Ext.P1 order. 2. The petitioners are the landlords of a building. Respondents 1 to 5 are tenants of different portions of the same building. There are disputes between the landlords and the tenants. There are litigations between them. Interim orders have been passed by the civil court directing maintenance of status quo and injunction against demolition of buildings pending disposal of the suit. However, the learned Magistrate had made it clear that the order of injunction shall not stand in W.P(C) No.16374 of 2011-V 2 the way of action being taken under Section 133 Cr.P.C. 2. It is further submitted that another person-not the landlords, had approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C demanding demolition of the buildings and abating threat of public nuisance. He alleged that the buildings are likely to fall and thereby cause danger to the local inhabitants. The Sub Divisional Magistrate had issued Ext.P1. That is a conditional order. Admittedly the same has not been made absolute so far. According to the petitioner, they are not interested in continuing with the said proceedings. They want to comply with Ext.P1 order. Notwithstanding the fact that it is only a conditional order, they say that they want to comply with the order. Respondents 1 to 5 are illegally obstructing the attempt of the petitioners to comply with Ext.P1 order. It is hence that they have come to this Court claiming issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 6 and 7. 3. Respondents 1 to 5 have entered appearance. They submit that the petitioners are guilty of a mala fide attempt to somehow throw the tenants out of possession. The one who had initiated proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C is only a name W.P(C) No.16374 of 2011-V 3 lender for the landlords. The landlords in collusion with the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C are involved in an attempt to clandestinely throw the tenants out of possession by use of force. The landlords cunningly did not choose to resist the proceedings initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. As the rights of the tenants would thereby be affected, the tenants came to this Court with W.P(c) No.34524 of 2010. They prayed that their interests may be protected. A learned Single Judge of this Court by Ext.R1(a), disposed of the said Writ Petition observing that it will be open to the tenants to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and raise their contentions. Accordingly they have got impleaded in the 133 proceedings. They have resisted the prayer in the 133 proceedings. The Sub Divisional Magistrate is proceeding with the enquiry. The matter stands posted to 08.07.11. It is at this juncture that the petitioners are trying to run away with an order of police protection from this Court. At any rate, the petitioners are not entitled to invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Before the Sub Divisional Magistrate completes the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C and decides the question whether the W.P(C) No.16374 of 2011-V 4 conditional order is liable to be made absolute, the petitioners may not be armed with an order of police protection. The malafides of the landlords is clear from the circumstances, submits the learned counsel for the tenants. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The petitioners are well aware of the fact that respondents 1 to 5 have raised objections and the matter is pending consideration of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. At this juncture, even before the said proceedings are finalised and before the Sub Divisional Magistrate decides whether the conditional order must be made absolute or not, we find absolutely no merit in the prayer of the petitioners. Not only that there is no merit in the prayer, the very approach made by the petitioners smacks of mala fides. We are satisfied that the petition deserves to be dismissed. We are further satisfied that the displeasure of this Court to the course adopted by the petitioners must be reflected by an appropriate direction for payment of cost. 5. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is dismissed; b) While dismissing the petition, we direct the petitioners to pay cost Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to W.P(C) No.16374 of 2011-V 5 respondents 1 to 5 (Rs.1,000/- each), within a period of 30 days from this date. If the amount is not paid by then, respondents 1 to 5 shall be at liberty to get the same executed as if it is a decree. Necessary orders/certificates shall be issued by the Registry in this regard. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/