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 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14851 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.ABDUL KHADER, S/O.KAINIKKARE MAMMI HAJI JASMINE HOUSE,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. KANNACHAMPATTIL JAMEELA, W/O.ALI MOHAMMED, THEKKAN KUTTUR.PO, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. THAYYIL AMINU, W/O.PARAPPURATH MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, RESIDING -DO- 4. VALLAMPARAMBIL ASMABI, W/O.PARAPPURATH MUHAMMED KUTTY, RESIDING -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER 7-KODAMBAKKOM HIGH ROAD, MADRAS.34. 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., 7-KODAMBAKKOM HIGH ROAD, MADRAS-34 3. ISMAIL,ELAMKULATH HOUSE,VANIYANNOOR,HAJI BAZAR IRINGAVOR, TIRUR. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY FOR R3 SRI.K.K.M.SHERIFF SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH FOR R3 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R3 SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL FOR R3 SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN,(SR.),SC, FOR R1 & 2 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R1 & 2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 26.6.1989. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.5.2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.4.2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.4.2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PURCHASE DATED 3.4.2007. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14851 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 1st petitioner was the owner of 44 cents of land. He entered into a lease agreement with the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. concerning 23.3. cents of land out of the said 44 cents of land. The said Corporation established a petrol bunk there. 1st petitioner was the licensee of the Corporation authorised to run the bunk. The term of the lease expired on 31.3.2008. 1st petitioner is no longer interested to run the petrol bunk. Therefore, he asked the Corporation to vacate the premises. But, instead, they tried to surreptitiously induct the 3rd respondent as adhoc licensee to run it. 2. In the meantime, the petitioner has assigned the above property in favour of respondents 2 to 4. Therefore, they are also joined in this writ petition as persons interested in the property. Against the above unlawful action of the Corporation, which is plainly against the terms of the lease agreement, petitioners 3 to 5 filed Ext.P3 representation before the police. W.P.(C) No.14851/2008 2 Since the police did not take any action, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents 4 and 5 to give adequate and sufficient police protection to the life of the petitioners as well as the property whose details are shown in Ext.P1 agreement from the unauthorised and illegal act of forcible occupation of the leased premises by respondents 1, 2 and 3. b) Direct the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action on the basis of Ext.P3 petition. c) to grant such other reliefs prayed for from time to time including cost of these proceedings.” We feel that the police have no role to play in this dispute between the owners of the property and its lessee. The petitioners have to move the competent Civil Court. In view of the above position, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move the competent Civil Court. The contentions of the respondents are also left open. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps