IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3353 of 2011(T) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- LEKHA RANI , W/O.LATE AJIKUMAR VILAYIL VEEDU, CHELLAMANGALAM, CHEMPAZHANTHI PO NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.618, 5TH BLOCK, E.M.S. NAGAR, PATTOOR, VANCHIYOOR P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.M.JAYASREE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY - 695 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATIN - 695 020. 3. SREEKANTAN, S/O.THANKAMMA SREEHARI, KUNNUMPURAM, CHELLAMANGALAM CHEMPAZHANTHI PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 018. 4. USHAKUMARI, D/O.THANKAMMA VALIYAVILAKOM, CHELLAMANGALAM, CHEMPAZHANTHI P.O. - 695 018. 5. DEVARAJAN, S/O.BHASKARAN VALIYAVILAKOM, CHELLAMANGALAM, CHEMPAZHANTHI P.O. - 695 018 R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JAIBY PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 3353 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PLAIN IN OS 47/2011. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATE D 7.1.2011 IN IA 269/2011 IN OS 47/2011 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3 : COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN RECEIPT OF COMPLAINANT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF PETITION SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.3353 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for the issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2-police officials to afford protection to the petitioner against wanton, illegal and violent acts of respondents 3 to 5. 2. According to the petitioner, she is a widow. Her husband had six cents of property. After the death of her husband she was allegedly residing along with her mother- in-law. Mother-in-law expired on 6.11.2010. The mother in law had four cents of property adjacent to the six cents of property of the husband. There is a building standing in th property of the mother in law. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to enjoyment of the property left behind by her deceased husband and mother in law. Respondents 3 to 5 are relatives of the mother in law and according to the petitioner, they are illegally causing WPC No.3353/2011 2 obstruction to the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. She is not being permitted to enter the property. Her life and person are threatened by respondents 3 to 5, it is alleged. It is in these circumstances that police protection is claimed for the person, life and property of the petitioner. 3. This petition was admitted on 2.2.2011. Respondents have been served. There is no appearance for respondents 3 to 5. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain why an order granting police protection for the said property should be given to the petitioner. She is already before the civil court and the civil court has granted her only an interim injunction against commission of waste by the respondents. Ext.P2 is the copy of that order. 5. The petitioner cannot obviously claim any order for protection of her exclusive right to the property. The petitioner who is already before the civil court must certainly seek directions from the civil court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in these WPC No.3353/2011 3 circumstances prays that an order of police protection may be granted for the person and life of the petitioner. The materials do not indicate any threat to the life of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that in the perception of the police officials also, there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. If there be any threat to the life or person of the petitioner from respondents 3 to 5, adequate police protection shall be afforded by respondents 1 and 2, submits the learned Government Pleader. No specific directions are necessary for that, it is submitted. 7. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are not persuaded to agree that any directions for protection of property need be issued to the petitioner who has already gone to the civil court and has secured an order against commission of waste vide Ext.P2 order from the civil court. As regards the threat to the life and person of the petitioner is concerned, we do not perceive any threat to the life or person of the petitioner. We take not of the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that if there be any culpable WPC No.3353/2011 4 threat to the life or person of the petitioner from respondents 3 to 5, adequate and appropriate action shall be taken by respondents 1 and 2. In these circumstances, we do not perceive the need to issue any specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/