IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32873 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- N. SAHADEVAN, S.B. NIVAS, AMBANAD, KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 040. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. N. MOHANAN, M.A.A.S. VILASAM, AMBANAD, KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 040. 2. SUDHA, W/O.MOHANAN, M.A.A.S. VILASAM,AMBANAD, KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 040. 3. L.PUSHPARAJ, AYYAPPA SADANAM,AMBANAD, KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 040. 4. VIDILA, W/O.PUSHPARAJ, AYYAPPA SADANAM,AMBANAD, KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 040. 5. BALAKRISHNAN,AYYAPPA SADANAM,AMBANAD, KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 040. 6. THANKAMANI, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN,AYYAPPA SADANAM, AMBANAD,KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 040. 7. VINOD, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN,AYYAPPA SADANAM, AMBANAD,KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 040. 8. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KARAMANA POLICE STATION, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002. 9. THY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMPANUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. R8 & R9 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DINESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 32873/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 23/09/2002 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGEMNT DATED 26/03/2008 IN O.S.NO.1366/2006. P3: COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND SKETCH DATED NIL FILED IN O.S.NO.1366/2006. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/08/2009 IN O.S. NO.1398/2007. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/07/2009 IN WPC.NO.20641/2009 P6: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DEMOLISHED COMPOUND WALL. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/09/2010 IN CRMC.NO.1320/10 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P8: PETITION BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARAMANA POLICE STATION FOR ADEQUATE POLICE PROTECTION. P9: REPRESENTATION DATED 30/09/2011 FOR POLICE PROTECTION BEFORE THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM. P9(a):COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER ACKNOWLEDGING EXT.P9. P10: APPLICATION BEFORE THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER. P11: COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITIN FILED ALONG WITH THE A.S.10/11. P12: THE COUNTER FILED TO EXT.P11 APPLICATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C) NO.32873 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking police protection directions; (i) for reconstructing the compound wall in the property of the petitioner lying in Sy. No.102 (Re.Sy. No.143/5A) of Nemam Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, without any obstruction from respondents 1 to 7 and their men (ii) for the lives and property of the petitioner and members of his family (iii) for the workers who are engaged by the petitioner for construction of a compound wall. 2. On this writ petition came up for admission Sri. Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran learned Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of respondents 8 and 9 and we have heard him also. 3. Having regard to the averments in the writ petition and the various materials placed on record, particularly Ext.P2 judgment, Ext.P3 commission report and the submissions addressed before us by Sri. E. Narayanan learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that it is not for this court to W.P.(C) No.32873 /2011 2 consider the protection, which the petitioner has sought in respect of the construction of the compound wall in question. True, in terms of Ext.P2 judgment, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed in favour of the petitioner from demolishing and removing any portion of the said compound wall. Under Ext.P2 the counter claim, which the party respondents who were defendants in the suit had raised, was dismissed and that too with costs. Mr.Narayanan learned counsel for the petitioner however would very fairly submit before us that against Ext.P2 the 3rd respondent has preferred Ext.P11 appeal and delay petition. According to Mr.Narayanan, the averments in the affidavit in support of the delay petition are so weak that in all probability the delay petition will be dismissed and the appeal will be rejected. Even if the appeal is considered on merits, the chances of appellant succeeding in the appeal are very remote in view of the clear findings in Ext.P2, so submitted Mr. Narayanan. 4. The persuasiveness of the submissions addressed by Mr.Narayanan notwithstanding, we are not inclined to issue protection directions sought in respect of the construction of the compound wall. The appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent is W.P.(C) No.32873 /2011 3 pending before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It appears to us that the above appeal is made over to one of the Sub Courts at Thiruvananthapuram. We direct the petitioner to approach the Sub Court with appropriate application for rendition of police protection in the matter of restoring the compound wall,which, we are told, was demolished by the 3rd respondent. We also find that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and other party respondents are related to each other. The learned Sub Judge, who is considering the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent, can explore the possibilities of a settlement of the compound wall construction issue, if necessary by summoning the concerned parties to the court hall. If settlement does not come through, the learned Subordinate Judge will pass appropriate orders on the application which may be filed by the petitioner for police protection in the matter of construction of the compound wall. This direction need not be mis understood as a direction for allowing application for condonation of delay filed by the 3rd respondent. That application shall be decided in accordance with law on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. 5. As already stated, the petitioner seeks protection for W.P.(C) No.32873 /2011 4 lives and limbs of himself and members of his family. As for this relief, we find that Ext. P9 complaint has been submitted by the petitioner before the City Commissioner of Police. The petitioner is directed to submit a petition seeking protection for his own life and limbs as well as for the lives and limbs of his family members before the 9th respondent. If the 9th respondent receives such a petition from the petitioner within seven days from today, the 9th respondent will conduct an eqnuiry into that petition and as part of the enquiry he will summon the party respondents. If the enquiry reveals that there is subsisting threat to the lives and limbs of the petitioner and his family members, the 9th respondent shall take such action as is necessary for protecting the lives and limbs of the petitioner and his family members. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk W.P.(C) No.32873 /2011 5