IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25139 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOSEPH.K.V @ JOSE, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, KODIYAN HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM.P.O, AMBALLOOR, PIN - 682 315, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, MULANTHURUTHY - 682 314. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PIRAVOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 315. 3. K.K.BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, JEBEES MANZIL, KANJIRAMATTOM.P.O, AMBALLOOR, PIN - 682315, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 45 YEARS, XVI/43, MARANGATTUPARAMBIL, KANJIRAMATTOM.P.O, AMABALLOOR, PIN - 682 315, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. ASHA PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, -DO- 6. VISHNU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, -DO- GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K.RAMAPRASAD UNNI ADV. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R4 TO 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25139 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.376/11 IN O.S.NO.39/11 DT.7.2.2011 OF LEARNED SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: THE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.31.8.11 LODGED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 4TH RESPONDENT'S' EXHIBITS EXT.R4(a)-COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO RDO EXT.R4(b)-COPY OF THE REPORT OF VILLAGE OFFICER EXT.R4(c)-COPY OF MEASUREMENT SKETCH. EXT.R4(d)-COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY S.I OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY. EXT.R4(e)-COPY OF RECEIPT SHOWING LODGING OF COMPLAINT ISSUED TO I.G OF POLICE. EXT.R4(f)-COPY OF RECEIPT SHOWING LODGING OF COMPLAINT ISSUED TO 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(g)-COPY OF RECEIPT SHOWING LODGING OF COMPLAINT ISSUED TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(h)-COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO R4. EXT.R4(i)-COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY DPC ALUVA TO R4. EXT.R4(j)-COPY OF COMPLAINT MADE TO R1 BY R4. //True copy// R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** W.P(c) No.25139 of 2011-N ***************************** Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 police officials to afford adequate and sufficient protection against the alleged culpable, contumacious and violent acts of respondents 3 to 6. 2. According to the petitioner, he resides in his house along with his wife, aged parents and children. The petitioner is employed at Ernakulam. When he goes away from his house, respondents 3 to 6 indulge in contumacious and violent conduct against the inmates of the petitioner's house. The petitioner is also unnecessarily disturbed, threatened and intimidated. Complaints to the police have not evoked any useful response. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with the present petition. 3. The 3rd respondent has entered appearance and counter affidavit has been filed denying the allegations. W.P(c) No.25139 of 2011-N 2 According to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent has not in any way indulged in any culpable or contumacious conduct against the petitioner and the members of his family. 4. Respondents 4 to 6 have entered appearance through a counsel. Counter affidavit has been filed. Respondents 4 to 6 are a husband, wife and their son. They reside adjacent to the property of the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner has purchased the property and shifted his residence to the property of late. After he started occupation, he started unnecessarily creating problems. It is the grievance of respondents 4 to 6 that the petitioner is guilty of improper conduct against the 5th respondent. In short, respondents 4 to 6 lament that the boot is on the other leg. They are not the aggressors, but they are victims of aggression. There are civil disputes and litigation between the parties. Unable to secure success in the civil litigation, this petition is filed vexatiously by the petitioner, it is alleged. In these circumstances, no directions are liable to be issued against respondents 4 to 6, submits the learned counsel. 5. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of respondents 1 and 2, there is absolutely no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. It is true that there W.P(c) No.25139 of 2011-N 3 are certain disputes between the neighbours. But at any rate, there is absolutely no circumstances warranting issue of any specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submits that respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure that law and order is maintained and that persons - either the petitioner or respondents 3 to 6, are permitted to take law into their hands and indulge in any contumacious or violent acts. 6. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We are not persuaded to agree that there is any requirement of issuing any specific direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner or respondents 3 to 6 have any allegations of contumacious, violent and culpable conduct on the part of the other, they shall be at liberty to complain to respondents 1 and 2, who shall thereupon take appropriate action as required by law. 7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/