IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38609 of 2010(A) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ S.ANILKUMAR, S/O. SADANANDAN, AGED 40 YEARS, ANIL SADAN, LAKSHMI HOUSING COLONY, BEHIND KTC KANJIKODE(PO). BY ADV. SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, VALAYAR, VALAYARDAM P.O., PALAKKAD DIST-678 001. 2. THE C.I. OF POLICE, KASABA PUDUSSERRY, KANJIKODE. WEST PALAKKAD DIST - 678 007. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD SOUTH, PALAKKAD DIST - 678 001. 4. RAVI, TALUK KARYAVAHAK, RASHTRIYA SWAYAM SEVAK KARYALAYAM, DISTRICT OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678 001. 5. PRAMODH, ATTAPPALLAM, RASHTRIYA SWAYAM SEVAK, KARYALAYAM, DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001. 6. GURUJALINGAM, S/O. MUTHUKURUPPUPILLA, KANJIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD DIST- 678 621. R1 TO R3 BYGOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA R6 BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.38609/2010 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: AGREEMENT (AMENDED) DTD. 28/06/07. P2: CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, BEARING TIN NO.32090624403. P3: POLICE COMPLAINT DTD. 13/6/10 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER. P4: POLICE COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR POLICE PROTECTION DTD. 20/12/10. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R6(A): COPY OF THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DTD.22/02/2006. R6(B): COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2392/06 OFSRO, PALAKKAD. R6(C): COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DTD. 16/03/1994. R6(D): COPY OF THE RETIREMENT CUM RELEASE DEED DTD. 07/06/2008. R6(E): COPY OF THE RECONSTITUTED PARTNERSHIP DEED DTD. 09/06/2008. R6(F): COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 15/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE KANJIKODE BRANCH OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK. R6(G): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE WRIT PETITIONER AND THE 6TH RESPONDENT DTD. 13/07/2010. R6(H): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.38609 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford him police protection from the contumacious, culpable, intimidatory and violent conduct of respondents 4 to 6. 2. According to the petitioner, he had started a sole proprietory business. Later, according to him, he raised some amounts from the sixth respondent 'on partnership basis'. Thereafter, the sixth respondent quit the partnership business. There are disputes between the petitioner and the sixth respondent about their rights in respect of the business and the manner in which the business has to be carried on. It is at this juncture that the petitioner, complaining that the sixth respondent along with his henchmen are threatening and intimidating the petitioner, has come to this Court for directions under wpc No.38609/2010 2 Article 226 for police protection. There is a contention that there is a threat to the life of the petitioner. The alleged threat to the life of the petitioner, it is evident, is consequent to the civil dispute between the parties. There is nothing to indicate that there is any independent threat to the life or person of the petitioner which is not connected with the property disputes. The alleged threat to life and person also stems from the civil disputes which, as already said, have to be resolved by resort to the civil court. 3. We have heard both the counsel in detail. Essentially, the dispute is whether there is a partnership firm continuing and whether the partnership has been dissolved and if so, on what terms. There is also a dispute as to the person who is entitled to run the business. We are certainly of the opinion that these are not questions which this Court, invoking and exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, can attempt to resolve. The disputes between the parties who claim to be partners will certainly have to be resolved by resort to proper course by initiating proceedings before the Civil wpc No.38609/2010 3 Court. The parties cannot attempt to get such disputes resolved by resort to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. We are certainly of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the jurisdiction under Article 226 can need or ought to be invoked. 4. With the observation that the parties must approach the civil court to get internecine disputes between them resolved, we dismiss this writ petition. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/