IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011/10TH BHADRA 1933 WPC.No. 15743 of 2010 (P) ------------------------ --------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BALAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR KOLLAPPARAMBIL HOUSE,NEAR N.G.O. QUARTERS MUVATTUPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY MATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) OFFICE OF THE SUPDT, OF POLICE, ALUVA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MOOVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION,MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. A.SOMAN, SASTHANJALI (IRAPPANAL) S/O.ACHUTHAN, WARD NO.17, GIRI NAGAR, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. DAVID CHERIYAN, S/O.CHERIYAN, ELEMBRATHOTTATHIL, GIRI NAGAR, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. REJI PAUL, S/O.PAULOSE, VATHIYATTU, GIRI NAGAR MUVATTUPUZHA. 6. N.M.VARGHESE S/O.VARKEY, ROYAL FLAT,WARD NO.18 MUVATTUPUZHA. 7. GEORGE THARIYAN S/O.THAYIYAN, KEESHANJALIL, TAGORE NAGAR NEAR N.G.O. QUARTERS, MUVATTUPUZHA. tss W.P.(C) NO.15743/2010 8. M.J.GEORGE S/O.JOSEPH,MANNATHOOKKARAN HOUSE, TAGORE NAGAR NEAR N.G.O.QUARTERS, MUVATTUPUZHA. 9. SUKUMARAN NAIR S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, DRAUPATHI NILAYAM, TAGORE NAGAR NEAR N.G.O.QUARTERS, MUVATTUPUZHA. 10. ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, DRAUPATHI NILAYAM,TAGORE NAGAR NEAR N.G.O.QUARTERS ,MUVATTUPUZHA. 11. PUSHPARAJAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, PADIKKAL (BEENA BHAVAN), TAGORE NAGAR NEAR N.G.O.QUARETERS, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.CHARISMA R3-11 BY SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE R3,5 TO 11 BY SMT.P.V.PARVATHI R3,5 TO 11 BY SMT.REENA THOMAS R3,5 TO 11 BY SRI.P.A.SALIM R3,5 TO 11 BY SRI.RAMMOHAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-09-2011, ALONG WITH WPC. 17045/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.15743/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD 2.5.2010. P2:- COPY OF THE INFORMATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DTD. 10.2.2010. P3:- COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 22.1.2010. P4:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 17.3.2008. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 4001/2010 DTD. 11.2.2010. P6:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 8.11.2009 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 522/09 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPPUZHA, P8:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 9.4.2010 SUBMITTED TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE JFCM COURT MUVATTUPUZHA. P10:- COPY OF THE APOLOGY SUBMITTED BY SOME OF THE SIGNATORIES. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. R3(b):- COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.R3(a) COMPLAINT. R3(c):- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 24.5.2010. R3(d):- COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.37456/2007. R3(e):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 6.3.2006 IN WPC. 37456/2007. R3(f):- COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 2233/09 OF MUVATTUPPUZHA POLICE STATION. R3(g):- COPY OF THE REFER REPORT FILED BEFORE THE JFMC BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, MUVATTUPPUZHA. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ===================== W.P.(C)NOS.15743 & 17045 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of September 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Writ petition No.17045/2010 is filed by the functionaries of three residents association operating within the Municipal limits of Muvattupuzha Town seeking police protection and several other reliefs against the party respondents. Writ petition No.15743/2010 is filed by the 6th respondent in W.P.(C) No.17045/2010 seeking direction for police protection and other reliefs against the party respondents therein who are mostly functionaries of the Association. Detailed counter affidavits have been filed in both writ petitions. 2. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions received from the police officials submitted that the police have been taking prompt action as and when complaints have been received. 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, it was on account of prompt action taken by the police that untoward incidents and law and order situations could be averted. The W.P.(C)NO.17045 & -2- learned Government Pleader submitted that the police will be ready and willing to take necessary action on the basis of facts revealed in the enquiry conducted by them into complaints filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.10745/2010 and also by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.15743/2010. 4. Extensive submissions were addressed before us by Shri Bobby Mathew Koothattukulam, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15743/2010 and also by Shri Mohan Jacob George, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.17045/2010. These submissions were based on the pleadings raised by their respective parties and also the documents placed on record by them. Both Shri Bobby Mathew and Shri Mohan Jacob George would argue that their clients are entitled for police protection directions against their adversaries. 5. Learned Government Pleader, per contra, would submit that the police cannot be blamed of lethargy in the matter of taking necessary action. Hence, according to the Government Pleader, issuance of specific directions to render protection to either party is unnecessary. 6. We have given our anxious considerations to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the W.P.(C)NO.17045 & -3- pleadings as well as the documents. We are convinced that there is considerable bad blood between the petitioners in these two writ petitions. There are allegations and counter allegations, cases and counter cases have been filed and likelihood of law and order situation arising in the event of the police not taking prompt action cannot be ruled out. But the question is whether there is warrant for issuing a writ of mandamus to the police officers to render protection to one party against the other. 7. In this connection, we find that other Benches of this Court endeavoured vain to have a settlement of the disputes between the parties through mediation. It appears that the parties are not yet in a mood to settle their issues amicably. According to us, issuing police protection directions in favour of one of the parties and against the other is likely to aggravate the situation. We are , therefore, of the view that both the writ petitions can be disposed of issuing the following directions. 8. The concerned police officers, (1) the Sub Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha Police Station (4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.17045/2010), (2) The Circle Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha (2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.15743/2010) and (3) The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aluva (the W.P.(C)NO.17045 & -4- 1st respondent in W.P.(C)No.15743/2010 and who is the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.17045/2010) are directed to entertain complaints, if any, received from the petitioners in both these writ petitions regarding threat to their lives and limbs and to hold prompt enquiries into the truth of the complaints either themselves or through police officers not below the rank of a Sub Inspector of Police. If the enquiry so conducted reveals that there is subsisting threat to the lives and limbs of the complainants from the part of those who are arrayed as accused or respondents in the complaint, then it will be the obligation of the above three police officers to ensure by taking appropriate action that the lives and limbs of the complainants are safe and also that law and order situations do not arise or continue on account of the rivalry between the complainants and the accused/respondents. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ks. W.P.(C)NO.17045 & -5-