IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33087 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- HYDRU, S/O.MAMMOOTTY, AKKARA HOUSE, MANICKAPARAMBU, NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 583. 2. THE THACHANATTUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PALODE, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 583. 3. ABDULLAKOYA, S/O.IMBICHIKOYA, AGED 45 YEARS, KOCHIYIL MANATHALA HOUSE, NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 583. 4. MUTHUKOYA, AGED 42 YEARS, KOCHIYIL MANATHALA HOUSE, NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 583. 5. ASKAR, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, AGED 30 YEARS, KOCHIYIL MANATHALA HOUSE, NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 583. W.P.(C).NO.33087/2011-I: 6. SARAFU, S/O.KUNHISERIFA BEEVI, AGED 25 YEARS, KOCHIYIL MANATHALA HOUSE, NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 583. 7. AABID, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, AGED 33 YEARS, KOCHIYIL MANATHALA HOUSE, NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 583. 8. SALAHUDHEEN, S/O.MUTHUBEEVI, AGED 20 YEARS, KOCHIYIL MANATHALA HOUSE, NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 583. 9. SHIHAB, S/O.IMBICHIKOYA, AGED 38 YEARS, KOCHIYIL MANATHALA HOUSE,NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 583. 10. KUNHISHERIHA BEEVI @ KUNHISHAKKU BEEVI, D/O.LATE ALI AKBAR, AGED 50 YEARS, KOCHIYIL MANATHALA HOUSE,NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 583. 11. MUTHUMMA, D/O.ALI AKBAR, AGED 48 YEARS, KOCHIYIL MANATHALA HOUSE,NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 583. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.33087/2011-I: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT-P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.6261/2010 OF THE S.R.O.MANNARKKAD. EXHIBIT-P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2011 IN I.A.NO.698/2011 IN O.S.NO.115/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD. EXHIBIT-P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.321/2011 OF THE NATTUKAL POLICE. EXHIBIT-P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.10.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C) NO.33087 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking police protection directions for carrying out the construction of a building and also for his life and limbs from the threats and contumacious acts of the party respondents. According to him, the civil court under Ext.P2 has permitted the construction of the building by the petitioner. Nevertheless the party respondents are obstructing the construction. 2. Sri.K.N.Abhilash learned counsel for the petitioner points out further that a close relative of the party respondents filed a writ petition before this court alleging that the construction, which is undertaken by the petitioner is illegal. However, this court did not pass any interim order restraining the construction. Hence, the learned counsel requested that W.P.(C) No.33087 /2011 2 protection directions be issued not only for the life of the petitioner but also for carrying out the construction. 3. When this writ petition came up for admission, Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran learned Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of the first respondent and we have heard him also. 4. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the various materials placed on record. We do not think that this is a case where we would be justified in issuing directions for police protection for carrying out constructions by the petitioner. Ext.P2 is an order issued by a competent civil court permitting the petitioner to carry out the construction. If the petitioner has complaint that in spite of Ext.P2 the party respondents are obstructing the construction, it is always open to the petitioner to appraise the civil court of the situation and to seek directions from that court for rendition of police protection for carrying out the construction, which is permitted under Ext.P2. We relegate the petitioner to such remedy as regards the constructions. 5. We shall now deal with the protection sought for in W.P.(C) No.33087 /2011 3 respect of the petitioner's life and limbs. Ext.P3 FIR will show that considering previous complaint filed by the petitioner, the police have registered a crime which is obviously under investigation. We do not find any reason as to why the police should be lethargic if complaints are filed by the petitioner of further threats against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 is the last representation which was submitted to the police. But on going through Ext.P4, we do not find any allegation therein that there is threat to the life and limbs of the petitioner. If the petitioner feels that there is subsisting threat to the life and limbs of the petitioner from the party respondents, it is open to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the first respondent. If the first respondent receives fresh petition from the petitioner complaining of threats to his life and limbs from any of the party respondents within a period of seven days from today, the first respondent will take immediate action after conducting enquiry. As part of the enquiry, the first respondent can summon or meet the party respondents. If the enquiry reveals that there is truth in the allegations contained in the prospective petition, the first W.P.(C) No.33087 /2011 4 respondent shall take appropriate action as is necessary for protecting the life and limbs of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk W.P.(C) No.33087 /2011 5