IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17050 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJAN,S/O.KRISHNAN,AGED 48, MOOKATHU HOUSE,CHATHANADU KARA,EZHIKKARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,NORTH PARUR POLICE STATION-683 513. 2. MURALI,S/O.NARAYANAN,MOOKATHU HOUSE, CHATHANADU KARA,EZHIKKARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17050/2011-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LICENSE. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LICENSE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/05/11 IN I.A. NO.553/11 IN O.S. NO. 130/11 OF MUNSIFF COURT, N. PARAVUR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.17050 of 2011-E -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this, the 6th day of July 2011 Judgment Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who claims to conduct fishing at stake net Nos.5, 16, 26, 30 and 32 at Mookkathu Padom, seeks police protection for him and the members of his family for the continuous conduct of fishing, from the second respondent. The second respondent is a cousin of the petitioner who set up a rival claim to conduct fishing from the very same stake nets. It is seen that the issue was considered by the civil court and that the order of injunction initially granted ex parte, was vacated by the civil court under Ext.P4. The petitioner has averred that the findings entered by the civil court in Ext.P4 in his favour have attained finality. WPC 17050/11-E 2 2. The learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the instructions received by him, submitted that when the Sub Inspector of Police was informed about Ext.P4 order, vacating the interim injunction, the second respondent was summoned and he was directed to approach the civil court if he has any grievance about Ext.P4. As such, the petitioner is under control of the fishing nets concerned. 3. Even though notice was served on the second respondent by special messenger, he did not turn up before this court. 4. Having considered the averments in the writ petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and those of the learned Government Pleader, particularly in view of Ext.P4, we are inclined to grant reliefs to the petitioner to a certain extent. The writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent Sub Inspector of Police to ensure that there is no obstruction to the conduct of fishing at stake net Nos.5, 16, 26, 30 and 32 WPC 17050/11-E 3 of Mookkathu Padom by the petitioner, from the second respondent so long as Ext.P4 is in currency. It should be ensured by the Sub Inspector of Police that no law and order situation arises at the area of fishing, i.e., at stake net Nos. 5, 16, 26, 30 and 32 of Mookkathu Padom. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 17050/11-E 4