IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8164 of 2011(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAJENDRAN @ RAJU,AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN,THODIYIL VEEDU,PUNNATHALA,KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,KOLLAM 691010. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST , KOLLAM 691 013. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST , KOLLAM 691 013. 4. D.SASIKUMAR, INJAKKAL VEEDU, PUNNATHALA, KOLLAM 691 007. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SRI.LEO GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.8164/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH SHOWS THE BURNT WOODEN LOGS WHICH WERE SET ABLAZE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 10.3.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 8164 OF 2011U ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner against culpable and violent acts apprehended from fourth respondent. 2. According to the petitioner he owns properties near a temple. Petitioner has not sold the property to anyone but the fourth respondent entertains the incorrect impression that he has sold the property to one Divakaran. He is indulging in wanton and violent conduct against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before us that the petitioner is not seeking any order of protection for his properties. 3. The fourth respondent has entered appearance. The fourth respondent opposes the application. The grievance of the fourth respondent is that the petitioner is contumaciously suppressing relevant information. The fourth respondent is a High School Teacher and is a member of the managing committee of a temple. He was secretary of that temple. Temple WPC 8164/2011 2 was being administered by a trust. Temple is about six cents of landed properties (garden land). There is another 50 cents of paddy land around the temple. Around the said 50 cents there were properties of the author of the trust. According to the fourth respondent there is a stipulation that members of the public can come to those properties in connection with the temple festival. Petitioner according to the fourth respondent is attempting to create rights in respect of such properties and deny the rights of the members of the public over such properties. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent categorically asserts that the fourth respondent shall not cause any harm or threat to the life or person of the petitioner. The attempt is to steal a march in the dispute regarding property. No directions under Art.226 of the Constitution are hence liable to be issued submits the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 4. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instruction submits that in the perception of respondents 1 to 3 there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner from the fourth respondent. It is true that the petitioner had filed complaints against the fourth respondent but on enquiry/investigation it has been revealed that such complaints are not true or genuine. WPC 8164/2011 3 There is no need to issue any directions under Art.226 of the Constitution. If there be any threat against the petitioner from the fourth respondent or any other the petitioner can complain and thereupon respondents 1 to 3 shall take necessary action to abate such threat if any submits the learned Govt. Pleader. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that no specific directions under Art.226 can need or deserve to be issued now. 6. In the result; a) This petition is dismissed. b) We record that we heavily rely on the submissions of fourth respondent that he shall not pose any threat or harm to the life and person of the petitioner and the submissions of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 that if there be any such threat necessary action shall be taken by respondents 1 to 3. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 8164/2011 4 WPC 8164/2011 5