IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11159 of 2011(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- USHAKUMARI, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. LATE SAJI,KUZHIPPATHALIL HOUSE, EDAKKULAM.P.O EDAKKULAM MURI, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADASSERIKKARA – 695 573. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI – 695 632. 4. SARASAMMA, KUZHIKKALAYIL HOUSE, EDAKKULAM.P.O, EDAKKULAM MURI, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 695 573. 5. REKHA PRASAD, EDAKKULAM.P.O, EDAKKULAM MURI, VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 695 573. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA, R4 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.V.SETHUNATH, SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11159/2011-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN I.A. NO. 824/2010 IN O.S. NO.141/2010 DTD. 31/07/2010. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 03/11/2011 SUBITTED BY THE PETITINER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 08/11/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.11159 of 2011-T ***************************** Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner, a 39 year old woman, has come to this Court seeking directions under article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 2 and 3, who are police officials under the 1st respondent State, against apprehended illegal acts from respondents 4 and 5, who according to the petitioner, are causing threat to her life. 2. Parties are closely related, the petitioner being the niece of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is a 76 year old woman and the 5th respondent is her daughter in law. They and the petitioner own adjacent properties. According to the petitioner, there was an attempt to widen a pathway by encroaching into the property of the petitioner. In respect of that dispute, a civil suit has been filed. Interim orders have been secured by the petitioner. In these circumstances, no specific directions are now claimed relating to property. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner apprehends physical harm from respondents 4 and 5. Protection of life and person may be granted. This is the short prayer. W.P(C) No.11159 of 2011-T 2 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 23.05.2011, an interim direction was issued to respondents 2 and 3 “to afford protection for the life of the petitioner against any culpable or contumacious acts on the part of respondents 4 and 5.” 4. Respondents 4 and 5 submit that they have no intention to widen any pathway. They further assert and undertake that they shall not indulge in any contumacious or culpable conduct against the petitioner herein. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that the police officials do not also perceive any threat to the life of the petitioner. Appropriate directions may be issued. If there be any threat against life or person of the petitioner emanating from respondents 4 and 5, necessary action in accordance with law to afford protection to the petitioner shall be taken by respondents 2 and 3, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent wants this Court to note that the 4th respondent is a very old, sick and an infirm woman, aged 76 years. That would expose the emptiness and hollowness of the apprehended danger from W.P(C) No.11159 of 2011-T 3 respondents 4 and 5 by the petitioner, points out the learned counsel for respondent No.4. 6. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We are not persuaded to agree that there is need to issue any specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We record and accept the submission/undertaking of respondents 4 and 5 through their counsel that they shall not indulge in any contumacious or culpable act against the petitioner herein. We further record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any such attempt, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain to the 3rd respondent, who shall thereupon take appropriate action in accordance with law. 7. Recording the above submissions/undertakings, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/