IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15833 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.M.ALI,AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.MOIDEEN, PALLIKKAL HOUSE,KAKKANADU VILLAGE,THENGOD KARA, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA, PO KAKKANADU. 2. C.I, OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA, PO KAKKANADU. 3. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 4. THOMAS,S/O.MATHEW,PARAYIN KUDIYIL HOUSE, MORAKKALA,PO KUMARAPURAM,KIZHAKKAMBALAM (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA ADV. SRI.VARGHESE PREM FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 15833/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PROPERTY. P1(a):COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE FEDERAL BANK SANCTIONING THE LOAN. P2(a):COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SBI, SOUTH KALAMASSERY BRANCH. P3: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT. P4: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING. P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16/06/2011. P6(a):COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 17/06/2011 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.15833 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner for the completion of his residential building which has already commenced against illegal obstruction raised by the 4th respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he wants to build a residential building in the property belonging to him. He has proceeded with the construction. The construction is not complete. In connection with the construction, he had requisitioned of the service of the 4th respondent for the purpose of procuring labour. Now there is a disagreement with the 4th respondent. The petitioner does not want the 4th respondent to have anything to do with the remaining construction. The 4th respondent is unhappy about the decision of the petitioner. He is raising illegal obstruction against the continuance of the construction. Appropriate W.P.(C).NO.15833 OF 2011 : 2 : directions may be issued which would enable the petitioner to proceed with the construction and complete the same. The police protection is sought, in these circumstances. 3. The 4th respondent has entered appearance. The 4th respondent submits that the petitioner has not at all apprised this court the real state of affairs. Two adjacent buildings are being constructed. The neighbours together have wanted the 4th respondent to undertake that construction. Accordingly, the 4th respondent has proceeded with the construction. The petitioner has illegally wanted to deny the legitimate claims of the 4th respondent. The neighbour has assured the 4th respondent that the amounts payable in respect of the work done by the 4th respondent for such work have already been handed over to the petitioner herein. The petitioner does not hand over such amounts that is due from the petitioner in respect of the work done. The work is at a half way stage. Without terminating the contract for construction and before assessing the work done and the amount payable, the petitioner may not be permitted to arbitrarily take over the W.P.(C).NO.15833 OF 2011 : 3 : work and complete the same armed with an order of police protection as prayed for from this Court. That shall be denial of justice to the 4th respondent. The parties have definitely got to resort to litigation before the civil court to resolve their dispute. Such course may not be prevented by unilaterally affording police protection to the petitioner, submits the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that both the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent had complained to the police. The police is of the opinion that the dispute between them is a purely civil dispute. The police is reluctant to intervene in such dispute. It is for the parties to approach the civil court and seek remedies. Either of them can approach the civil court. The police cannot decide as to whether any amounts are due from the petitioner to the 4th respondent or from the 4th respondent to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, at any rate, protection may be afforded against any damage or destruction of the building and threat that is posed to the W.P.(C).NO.15833 OF 2011 : 4 : life and person of the petitioner. The petitioner may be permitted to complete the work subject to right, if any, of the 4th respondent to claim amounts, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 can or ought to be invoked. We agree with the learned Government Pleader that the dispute between them is purely a civil dispute. The parties must approach the civil court for appropriate directions and resolution of their controversies. We do not make any suggestion as to who should approach the civil court. The learned counsel for the petitioner would want us to afford protection to the petitioner and leave it to the 4th respondent to approach the civil court. We do not think that we need to issue any directions on this subject. We agree with the learned Government Pleader that the dispute being purely a civil dispute, no direction need be issued by this Court to the police in the matter. W.P.(C).NO.15833 OF 2011 : 5 : 7. In the result: This petition is dismissed. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police shall take necessary action, if there be any threat of destruction of property or physical violence against the petitioner. We do not think it necessary to issue any further specific directions. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge. cl