IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2645 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ASOK KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.VELAPPAN, RESIDING AT T.C.NO.4/964, MAZHUVANCHERY VEEDU, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CITY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DAMODARAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.2645 of 2010-E ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks the following reliefs; “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to grant sufficient protection to the petitioner for his life and to carry out his business lawfully and peacefully; ii) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take action on Exhibits-P4 and P5 complaints and to prevent the 4th respondent from causing unlawful hindrances and threat to the petitioner.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is doing business in a thatched shop. There is a three-storied building owned by the 4th respondent behind the petitioner's shop. It is stated that petitioner's father commenced business. After the death of the father, petitioner's brother continued it and after his death in 1993, petitioner took over the business. It is stated that the petitioner and his family members instituted a suit for declaration of title which is decreed as per Ext.P1. Thereafter, WPC 2645/2010 -2- it is alleged that the 4th respondent resorted to all illegal means to remove the petitioner's shop. He filed O.S.1474/1996 for prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner and others from making any alteration in the shop. That suit was decreed. It is stated that the petitioner and others filed appeal and that appeal was disposed of modifying the decree to the effect that the defendants can make annual maintenance work without making any alteration in the structure now existing (Ext.P2). The further allegation is that the 4th respondent influenced the City Corporation and they issued notice to remove the shop. The petitioner and his family members instituted a suit against the City Corporation and the 4th respondent. The suit was decreed and he also got a mandatory injunction to remove the shop from the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The High Court has stayed the same. It is stated that the 4th respondent is obstructing the petitioner from re-thatching the shop. It is stated that the 4th respondent along with another man came to the petitioner and threatened him. The person who came along with the 4th respondent drew out a knife and threatened to kill the petitioner, if he continued the work. Petitioner filed Ext.P5 complaint. WPC 2645/2010 -3- 3. After going through the averments and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction to direct extension of police protection. Apparently, there are disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Ext.P2 is the judgment of the appellate Court wherein of course the petitioner is not a party as such. But the claim is that the petitioner stepped into the shoes of late brother. We also went through the representation. We feel that petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by approaching the Civil Court as against the alleged actions of the 4th respondent. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach appropriate forum, this writ petition is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS