IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34017 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.M.JOHN, S/O. CHANDY MATHAI, T.C. NO.11/296, VATTAMKALAYIL HOUSE, PANAVILA, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED ADV.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MOLLY CHACKO, KADAVIL HOUSE, DEVASWOM LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THANKAPPAN NADAR, T.C. 11/130, PANAVILA, PARUTHIPPARA, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.34017/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SHOWING TREATMENT REPORT OF THE PETITIONER FROM SUT HOSPITAL, TVM. DT.17.12.1999. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER'S SON FROM CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE, VELLOOR DT.7.5.1991. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.657/2008 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.25.7.2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED FROM THE CITY CORPORATION, TVM. DT.29.7.2008 NO.ZU3/494/08. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.11.11.2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1778/1997 DT.13.6.1997 OF THE SRO, PATTOM. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE SALE DEE NO.1816/1997 DT.18.6.1997 OF THE SRO, PATTOM. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1481/1979 DT.25.4.1979. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.9151/08 IN O.S.NO.1901/08 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.17.11.2008. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.9841/2008 IN O.S.NO.1901/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.1.12.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.392/2006 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1901/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R3(c): COPY OF ORDER DT.3.11.2008 IN I.A.NO.9151/2008 IN O.S.NO.1901/2008. EXT.R3(d): COPY OF THE REPORT OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.NO.1901/2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34017 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 2nd respondent to grant adequate and effective police protection to the lives of the petitioner and his family members in the interest of justice.” 2. Ext.P5 is the petition filed by him, before the 2nd respondent, seeking police protection. There is a pathway by the side of the property owned by the petitioner. He obtained a permit from the Corporation to construct a compound wall for the same. He made the construction on 9.11.2008. While so, the 4th respondent, who is residing in the ground floor of the petitioner's residential building, tried to cause obstruction and threatened the petitioner to demolish the compound wall. The 3rd respondent and her supporters also raised a threat that they will demolish the compound wall. There is threat to the W.P.(C) No.34017/2008 2 petitioner's life and property, because of the actions of the aforementioned persons and therefore, he prayed for police protection. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the boundary abutting the property of the petitioner and the pathway is having a length of 50 feet. The petitioner put up the compound wall covering a length of 25 feet in the boundary line, in 2005. While doing so, he encroached into the pathway and reduced its width. So, she filed Ext.R3(a) suit, seeking a mandatory injunction for the demolition of the compound wall. On 19.10.2008, again the petitioner attempted to construct the compound wall for the remaining portion of the boundary. Immediately, the 3rd respondent moved the civil court and obtained Ext.R3(c) injunction order, restraining the petitioner, his wife and son from making any construction so as to cause obstruction to the use of the plaint schedule pathway. It is further submitted that Ext.R3(d) Commissioner's report would show that the construction of the compound wall was not over. But, in violation of the order of the civil court, Ext.R3(c), the petitioner has completed the construction. Now, application for prosecuting W.P.(C) No.34017/2008 3 the petitioner for the violation of injunction order is pending before the civil court. To get over that action, this writ petition is filed, seeking police protection, it is submitted. 4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations of the 3rd respondent and reiterating his contentions. According to him, he constructed a compound wall, strictly in accordance with the permit granted by the Corporation. 5. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that both sides were summoned to the police station and a settlement was arrived at. But, the said submission is disputed by both sides. 6. By constructing the compound wall, whether the petitioner has reduced the width of a pathway or has put it up exactly on his boundary, is a civil dispute, which is already pending before the civil court. We think that it is not proper for us to ask the police to interfere in this dispute. The allegation of threat to the life of the petitioner is only a ruse to seek police protection. We feel that the threat to the petitioner's life is alleged W.P.(C) No.34017/2008 4 only to seek police protection. If the petitioner has constructed the compound wall, in accordance with law, and the party respondents are trying to demolish it, the petitioners remedy lies before the civil court and not before the police station. Further, we notice that the petitioner has failed to plead in the writ petition, the pendency of O.S.No.1901/2008 or Ext.R3(c) interim order passed in it. It will amount to suppression of material facts. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. But is made clear that the observations made by us will not affect the contentions of the parties in the civil suit and the civil court shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by anything said or observed in this judgment. It is also clarified that the above judgment will not affect the powers of the police to take action, in accordance with law, if any cognizable offence is reported. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps