IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11329 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SANTHOSH VARGHESE S/O. VARGHESE, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, MUZHATHANGIL, VILAKKUPARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER TITUS C. THOMAS BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOLLAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT 4. SRI. RANJITH, S/O. REJENDRANPILLAI, RAJENDRA VILASAM, AKKONAM, CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT 5. RAJENDRANPILLAI, RAJENDRA VILASAM, AKKONAM,CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT BY G.P.SRI. SALIM P.A THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.11329 OF 2008-W -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner, represented by his power of attorney holder, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his workers to induct barbed wire fencing on the retaining wall of north- western portion of the petitioner's property in Re-Survey No.289/1, Block No.42 in Chadayamangalam Village, Kottarakkara Taluk in the light of Ext.P3 judgment. (ii). To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondents 2 and 3 to remove all or any of the obstructions from respondents 4 and 5 and from their men and associates in inducting barbed wire fencing on the north-western boundary of the petitioner's property; (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction directing respondents 2 and 3 to take appropriate action against respondents 4 and 5 and their men and associates for the illegal obstruction and for other illegal acts they have done against the petitioner and for any such illegal acts or obstruction that may commit hereafter against the petitioner and his workers . 2 during the course of barbed wire fencing for protecting and preserving the property of the petitioner”. 2. The petitioner relies on Ext.P3 judgment in his favour restraining defendants 1 and 2 therein, who are respondents 4 and 5 herein, from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or widening the western footpath after demolishing the boundary of the plaint schedule property. 3. Even if the petitioner has such a judgment in his favour, while putting up the boundary wall or fencing, if anybody is causing obstruction, the petitioner's remedy is to move the Civil Court and not to go to the local police station and thereafter come to this Court. The view taken by us is supported by the decisions of this Court in Devadasan v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 739) and M.G. Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KHC 461). In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. . 3 cl