IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22670 of 2011(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- APPUNNI NAIR, AGED 86 YEARS, PUTHUMANAPPILLY, NETTASSERY TEMPLE AVENUE, THRISSUR NOW RESIDING AT 55, ABBOTSBURY GARDENS, EASTCOTE HA 51 TB, LONDON, U.K. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (LAW AND ORDER) POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-680001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRISSUR-680001. 4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANNUTY POLICE STATION, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680651. 5. CHANDRIKA, W/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, PARANGODATH, NETTASSERY, TEMPLE AVENUE, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680651. WP(C).No. 22670 of 2011(G) -2- 6. ACHUTHAN NAIR, PARANGODATH, NETTASSERY, TEMPLE AVENUE, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680651. 7. AJITH S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, PARANGODATH NETTASSERY TEMPLE AVENUE, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680651. 8. SUJITH, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, PARANGODATH, NETTASSERY TEMPLE AVENUE, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651. ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R5-8 SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R5-8 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22670 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.02/08/11 PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE POP NO.20/11 IN OS. NO....... OF 2011 PENDING BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.12/08/11. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.18/08/11 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.22670 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner an octogenarian has approached this Court seeking police protection for his life and for his peaceful residence in a building situated in a property having an extent of 28 cents in Sy. No.245/6 of Nettessery village. According to the petitioner, he had been to U.K. and when he came over to his home town, Thrissur, he is prevented from occupying the building belonging to him by the 5th respondent Chandrika who was formerly his maidservant and also by respondents 6 to 8 who are respectively husband and children of the 5th respondent. The case is that the 5th respondent was the maidservant of the petitioner and the 6th respondent was the petitioner's driver. W. P. C. No.22670 of 2011 -2- According to the petitioner, even though Ext.P4 complaint was submitted to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent has not taken any effective action. 2. On considering this Writ Petition for admission, we, on 19/08/11 directed the Government Pleader to seek instructions immediately from the 3rd respondent as to what action has been taken on Ext.P4. It was further directed that if no action is taken so far on Ext.P4 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner either directly or through any officer subordinate to him will conduct immediate enquiry about the correctness of the allegations contained in Ext.P4. Today, on the basis of the directions from the 3rd respondent, Smt.C.M.Charisma, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the enquiry was conducted pursuant to the interim order dt.19/08/11. The enquiry revealed that the petitioner on coming to Thrissur from U.K. went over to W. P. C. No.22670 of 2011 -3- occupy the building in question, but was surprised to find the same locked. The petitioner would break open the lock and enter the building. Later, after the petitioner left, the party respondents locked up the building again. If the petitioner is willing to reside in the building, the police has no objection in affording protection. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that it was revealed that a suit is pending as indigent O.P. No.20/11 before the Thrissur Sub Court in which interim reliefs are sought in respect of the property also. 3. Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel addressed us for the petitioner and Sri.T.Krishnanunni, learned senior counsel addressed us on behalf of the party respondents. Sri.Krishnanunni submitted that the building in question was under the physical possession of the party respondents. The keys of the building has now been W. P. C. No.22670 of 2011 -4- produced before court. The learned senior counsel submitted that granting protection to the petitioner for residing in the building which is in a way subject matter of the POP will not be proper. As regards the protection sought for in respect of life Sri.Krishnanunni submitted that there is no threat at all from the part of the party respondents to the life of the petitioner. 4. Sri.V.Chitambaresh, the learned Senior Counsel would resist all the submissions of Sri.Krishnanunni. Sri.Chitambaresh submitted that the petitioner on coming back from U.K. is unable to occupy his own building. The 5th respondent was petitioner's maidservant and the 6th respondent was Driver. They can never have possession over the building. The petitioner is now compelled to reside in a lodge. This is a very hard situation and this may not be allowed to continue. Sri.Chitambaresh highlighted that the W. P. C. No.22670 of 2011 -5- suit is only for recovery of money allegedly due to the 5th respondent by way of salary arrears. At the most a decree for money will be passed and it may be possible for the 5th respondent to levy execution of the decree by attachment of the property in question. But the property can never belong to the 5th respondent. Sri.Chitambaresh requested that protection be granted both in respect of the peaceful residence and also in respect of life. 5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar by the learned senior counsel on both sides. We have also considered the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We have gone through the materials placed on record, particularly the papers pertaining to the POP which is pending before the Thrissur, Sub Court. We find that even though in the POP the relief sought for is a decree for money, I.A.5775/11 has been filed W. P. C. No.22670 of 2011 -6- seeking an oder of injunction to restrain the present petitioner and his wife who are the respondents in the POP from evicting the 5th respondent herein (the petitioner in the POP) forcibly from the building and also from taking forcible possession of a Toyota Inova car which is described in Schedule 'B' of the above petition. It is clear on a reading of the materials pertaining to the pauper O.P that the 5th respondent is asserting possession over the building in question. We do not think that we will be justified at present, as the Sub Court is in seizin of the issue as to the possession over the building in rendering police protection to the petitioner for residing in the building. We feel that the I.A.5774/11 should be decided by the Thrissur Sub Court immediately. We direct the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur which is in seizin of POP.20/11 and interlocutory proceedings therein including the petition for injunction W. P. C. No.22670 of 2011 -7- referred to herein above (I.A.5774/5775 of 2011) to hear both sides and take a decision in the I.A. for injunction at the earliest and at any rate within two weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. If the above I.A. is decided by the learned Subordinate Judge in favour of the petitioner in the Writ Petition and against the petitioner in the I.A. then it will be the obligation of the 4th respondent Station House Officer, Mannuthy Police Station to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner for peacefully residing in the building situated on the property having extent of 28 cents in Sy. 245/6 of Nettessery village (the property described in schedule 'A' of the injunction petition in POP.20/11). 6. The learned Subordinate Judge will grant relief to the deserving party on the basis of the decision taken in the I.A. for injunction in respect of the car which is described in schedule 'B' of the injunction petition also. Needless to W. P. C. No.22670 of 2011 -8- mention that the Station House Officer will be bound to ensure implementation of the above order also. 7. Coming to the protection sought in respect of the life of the petitioner, we record the submissions of Sri.Krishnanunni that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner from any of the party respondents and that there will not be any such threat. Nevertheless, we direct the 4th respondent to grant protection to the life of the petitioner after holding necessary enquiry if the petitioner approaches the 4th respondent for such protection. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.22670 of 2011 -9-