IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12490 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. P.A.ANTHRU, S/O. ASSAINAR, MUTHUVASSERY HOUSE, PANIPRA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. M.S.KUNJUMUHAMMED, S/O. SAIDU, MUTHUVASERRY HOUSE, PANIPRA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. C.M.VEERAKUTTY, S/O. MEETHEIN, CHIRAPULI HOUSE, ASAMANNOOR P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, KURUPPAMPADY, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL) ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101. 4. M.N.SAJEEV, S/O. NARAYANAN, MATTANAYIL HOUSE, PANIPRA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. 5. MAYA SAJEEV, W/O. SAJEEV, MAKKANAYIL HOUSE, PANIPRA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R4 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.M.K.DILEEPAN, SRI.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN, SMT.P.SUMITHRA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.12490/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT, DTD. 6.4.2011. P2:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT, DATED. 6.4.2011. P3:- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED AT THE INSTANCE OF RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 DATED 7.4.2011. P4:- COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 18.4.2011. P5:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15.4.2011 AT THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATION AT PERUMBAVOOR P6:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 11.4.2011 TO THE PETITIONERS . P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 18.4.2011 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, TIN 32151378644 C DATED 30.11.2009 OF M/S. CITIZEN TIMBERS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R4(a):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE IST RESPONDENT DATED. 2.4.2011. R4(b):- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE ALL KERALA PLYWOOD AND BLOCK BOARD MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION DATED. 23.4.2011. R4(c):- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED TO THE IA. NO.2152/2011 IN THE ARBITRATION PETITION BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT BY PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION DATED. 27.4.2011. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.12490 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: Petitioners have come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioners for the running of the business of three partnership firms. Petitioners along with respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 are partners in these firms. There is evidently disputes between the partners. According to the petitioners, respondents 4 and 5 are unnecessarily interfering with the affairs of the partnership. It is in these circumstances that police protection has ben claimed. 2. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance. They contend that the dispute is purely a civil dispute between the partners. Under the provisions of the partnership deeds, parties have to resort to arbitration for resolution of disputes. Respondents 4 and 5 have already taken the necessary steps. An application under Section 9 of the W.P.(C).NO.12490 OF 2011 : 2 : Arbitration and Conciliation Act has already been filed before the District Court, Ernakulam seeking directions relating to the running of the partnership. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 submits that in these circumstances petitioners cannot be permitted to arm themselves with any order of police protection. There are serious disputes between the partners as to who are/were running the partnership business. At any rate, respondents 4 and 5 have already wanted the partnership to be dissolved. Notice to that effect has already been issued. 3. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are certainly of the opinion that these internecine civil disputes between the parties cannot be left to the decision of the police. permitted to decide any question. Consequently invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant police protection, it is not proper, necessary or possible for us to issue directions to the police. The parties are already before the competent court. They must seek appropriate orders from such courts. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed. We may hasten to observe that we have not intended to make any W.P.(C).NO.12490 OF 2011 : 3 : opinion on merits about the dispute between the parties. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. cl /true copy/ P.S. to Judge