IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36886 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SAVITHRI, W/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 74 YEARS, VALLATHERI HOUSE, ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. SRI. RAJAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, VALLATHERI HOUSE, ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.ABDUL RAHIM SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM (RURAL), ALUVA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY. 4. MANILAL, S/O. BABU, VALLATHERI HOUSE, LOWDANE, ASHOKAPURAM, ALUVA. 5. MARTIN, S/O. OUSEPH, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VIP ROAD, ANGAMALY. 6. RAGHU @ KANNAN, S/O. VISWANATHAN, PALATTY HOUSE, KALADY P.O. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 36886 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The first petitioner is the widow of late Velayudhan. The second petitioner is her son. The 4th respondent is the first petitioner's grand-child. Respondents 5 and 6 are the henchmen of the 4th respondent, it is alleged. The first petitioner submits, she was running a hotel housed in a building complex which was owned by her late husband. The first petitioner has four sons and three daughters. All of them and the petitioner are having right in the building including the premises housing the hotel. The first petitioner was running the hotel. When the 4th respondent and his supporters, respondents 5 and 6, tried to cause obstruction to the same, she moved the civil court and obtained Ext.P6 ex parte ad interim order restraining them from WPC.36886/2008 -2- entering into the plaint schedule property or committing any waste. After the injunction order was served on the aforementioned party respondents, they trespassed into the hotel and manhandled the petitioners. Based on the information lodged by them, Ext.P7 crime has been registered against the party respondents. The petitioners submit, the police have registered a false counter case also in connection with the incident. 2. The petitioners point out that even after the injunction order was served, the party respondents have continued to cause obstruction to the petitioners in running the hotel. They are not even allowed to reside peacefully in their residence, which is in a portion of the aforementioned building complex. The local Circle Inspector of Police is siding with the culprits. So, the first petitioner preferred Ext.P10 representation before the Superintendent of Police, Aluva. While so, on 5-12-2008, the party respondents trespassed into the property, broke open the locks of the hotel and committed mischief there. Based on the information lodged by the petitioners, Ext.P13 crime has been registered against the culprits. Thereafter, the petitioners WPC.36886/2008 -3- preferred Ext.P14 representation before the Superintendent of Police seeking necessary protection to their lives. Alleging that the police did not take any action, this writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: “i) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioners and their family members from not being interfered with in any manner by respondents 4 to 6 or their agents or henchmen or anybody claiming under them.” 3. The dispute regarding the right to run the hotel is a civil dispute, which is pending before the civil court. The said civil dispute is breeding commission of criminal offences also. If the petitioners do not assert their right over the hotel, there will not be any threat to their lives. In this case, the first petitioner has already obtained an interim order from the civil court. If that order is violated, the remedy of the petitioners is to move the said court for appropriate reliefs and not the police. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner has already moved the civil court for prosecuting the defendants in WPC.36886/2008 -4- the suit for violation of the injunction order. We notice that, the said court can, if found necessary in appropriate cases, address the police also to extend necessary protection to enforce its orders. When the matter is already pending before the civil court, it is not proper for this Court to issue any direction in favour of one side invoking its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That will have the effect of tilting the balance in the civil dispute. 4. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks.