IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33107 of 2010(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.M.JOHNSON, S/O.CHANDY MATHAI, MUNDAKATHIL KALUNKINPURATHU, ANAPRAMPAL SOUTH.P.O., THALAVADY. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 005. 2. CHOOTTUMALI PADASEKHARA NELLULPADAKA SAMITHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANAPARAMBAL SOUTH.P.O., THALAVADY - 689 576. 3. CHOOTTUMALI PADASEKHARA NELLULPADAKA SAMITHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, ANAPARAMBAL SOUTH.P.O., THALAVADY - 689 576. 4. EASO ABRAHAM, VANIAPURAKAL HOUSE, ANAPARAMBAL SOUTH.P.O., THALAVADY - 689 576. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.33107.2010 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE CHOOTTUMALI PADASEKHARA NELLUPADAKA SAMITHY. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 14/09/1993 IN O.S.NO.12/92. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 26/10/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.33107 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 1st respondent to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of petitioner and his family members. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 1st respondent to prevent respondents 2,3,4 and their men, other farmers and workers from demolishing the sluice and from constructing the culvert in the place of sluice. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the successor in interest of plaintiff decree holder in Ext.P2 judgment and there is injunction against replacing the sluice and constructing a new culvert. Allegations are made against respondents 2 to 4. Respondents 2 to 4 filed counter affidavit W.P.C.No.33107 of 2010 2 wherein it is stated that they have no intention to demolish the culvert which is existing for more than 75 years and is a strong construction and the culvert is essential for irrigating the paddy fields. The learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submits that respondents 2 to 4 have no intention to destroy the existing sluice. However, he submits that agricultural operation may not be impeded. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will not impede the agricultural operation being done by the cultivators using sluice. 3. We record these submissions and close the writ petition. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.33107 of 2010 3 W.P.C.No.33107 of 2010 4 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010