IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).NO. 14228 OF 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ST.MARY'S HOTELS PVT. LTD.,KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS ,MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.O.ABRAHAM. 2. T.O.ABRAHAM,S/O.LATE KURUVILLA UNNITHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, KALLYECKAL HOUSE,THURUTHICAUD P,O,, MALLAPPALLY,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. BINU ZACHARIA,S/O.LATE T.S.SKARIAH, URUMBIKUNNEL,THRUUTHICAUD P.O., MALLAPPALLY,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HOME,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 R 6. T.O.ALEYAS,S/O.KURUVILA UNNITHAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 7. GIGGY KURIAKOSE, S/O.LATE T.O.KURIAKOSE, THOTTATHIL HOUSE,THURUTHICAUD P.O.,MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 8. ABRAHAM BABY, S/O. T.O.BABY,MARY SADANAM,THURUTHICAUD P.O., MALAPPALLY,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 9. BOBBY T.KURIAKOSE, S/O. LATE T.O.KURIAKOSE, TJHPOTTATHIL HOUSE, THURUTHICAUD P.O.,MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R5 ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS & SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R6 TO R8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 R APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)NO.14228/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.1.2007 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ON I.A.NO.2 AND I.A.NO.3 IN I.A.NO.2 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3446/06. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.7.07 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3446/06. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD OF SRI P.S.SUNEESH ISSUED BY ETTUMANOOR AREA AUTO RICKSHAW DRIVERS UNION (CITU). EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.2.2008 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN I.A.NO.8/08 IN C.A.NO.3446/06. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.3.08 OF THIS COURT IN W.P. (C)NO.4921/08. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.3.2008 OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.4921/08. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.3.2008 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.4.08 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ON I.A.NO.8/08 IN C.A.NO.3446/06. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 14.4.08 REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.156/08. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY SECURITY CAMERA AT THE HOTEL PREMISES. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 3.5.08 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS. EXT.P11-A: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 3.5.08 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS. EXT.P11-B: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 3.5.08 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS. EXT.P12: ORIGINALS OF CD (13 IN NUMBERS) OF ACTIVITIES DONE BY RESPONDENTS 6-9 AND HIRED GOONDA, RAJENDRAN.(ORIGINAL CDS IN SEPARATE COVER.) EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 10.5.08 SUBMITTED BY THE W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 R PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.5.08 OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.14228/08. EXT.P15: ORIGINAL COMPACT DISKS OF POLICE ACTION IN THE HOTEL. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY HOTEL TO SRI C.P.SOORAJ. EXT.P16-A: TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY HOTEL TO SRI SANDEEP V.MENON. EXT.P16-B: TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY HOTEL TO SRI GEE VARGHESE K.THAMPI (GIVAS K.THAMPI). EXT.P16-C: TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY HOTEL TO SRI K.V.RAJESH. EXT.P17: PHOTOCOPY OF INTERIM ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 13.5.08 IN W.P.(C)NO.14228/08 R. EXT.P18: PHOTOCOPY OF INVITATION FOR WEDDING AND THE FOLLOWING RECEIPTION OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S SON. EXT.P19: PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 30.9.08. EXT.P20: PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE HOME MINISTER OF KERALA ON 9.10.2008. EXT.P21: PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 9.10.08. EXT.P22: PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER OF THE ORGANIZING CHAIRPERSON, ISACON 2008 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P23: PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 8.10.08. EXT.P23(A): PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 7.10.08 AND ITS ACKNOWLEDGMENT. EXT.P23(B): PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 9.10.08. W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 R RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R6(A): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3446/06 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8. EXT.R6(B): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3.5.08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R6(C): TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 26.11.2007. EXT.R6(D): TRUE COYP OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN I.A.NO.8/08 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. EXT.R6(E): TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION. EXT.R6(F): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.5.04 IN CP.30/03 OF THE COMPANY LAW BOARD. EXT.R6(G): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.5.08 SENT BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. EXT.R6(H): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.5.08 GIVEN TO INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY. EXT.R6(I): TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.197/08. EXT.R6(J): TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.198/08. EXT.R6(K): TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH LIST PREPARED BY THE POLICE AND FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHANGANASSERY. EXT.R6(L): TRUE COPY OF THE PORTION OF THE NEWS ITEMS WHICH HAD APPARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY ON 15.5.08. EXT.R6(M): TRUE COPY OF THE PORTION OF THE NEWS ITEMS WHICH HAD APPEARD IN MANGALAM DAILY. EXT.R6(N): TRUE COPY OF THE PORTION OF THE NEWS ITEMS WHICH HAD APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA ON 15.5.08. EXT.R6(O): TRUE COPY OF THE PORTION OF THE NEWS ITEM WHICH HAD APPEARED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY ON 15.5.08. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14228 OF 2008 R ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The first petitioner is a Private Limited Company. The second petitioner is its Managing Director. The 3rd petitioner is one of its Directors. The Company is running a hotel called “Windsor Castle”. According to the petitioners, respondents 6 to 9 were the erstwhile Directors of the Company. Later, they were removed from the Directorship by the General Body Meeting held in 2003. The decision of the Director Board of the first petitioner-Company to allot shares worth Rs.2,20,000/- to the second petitioner, which tilted the balance in the share holding, was annulled by the Company Law Board. The Board's decision was reversed by this Court in the appeal filed by the petitioners. Now, the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3446/06, filed by respondents 6 to 9. The Apex Court passed various interim orders in the said case from time to time. Last of the orders passed is Exhibit P8. The said order reads as follows: “ In view of the order passed by this Court on W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 -2- 27.2.2008 with the following effect, most of the orders passed against the applicants have been withdrawn. This application has therefore become infructuous. But all the same appellants-respondents in this application are directed not to interfere with the affairs of the hotel but the applicants are directed to submit monthly accounts to the respondents and take all major decisions in consultation with them.” The petitioners 2 and 3 submit, going by the said order, they are entitled to manage the affairs of the first petitioner-Company. The party respondents herein are entitled to get monthly accounts and also have a right to be consulted, when major decisions are taken concerning the running of the company. On 3.5.2008 respondents 6 to 9 trespassed into the hotel, manhandled the second petitioner and indulged in violence. The said respondents were accompanied by a goonda by name Mr.Rajendran. Pointing out the incident which took place on 3.5.2008, the second petitioner filed representations before the concerned police officers, copies of which are produced as Exhibit P11 series. The petitioners submit, the police did not take any action on those representations, but, instead registered a crime against them, based on the petition filed by the aforementioned respondents. The petitioners 2 W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 -3- and 3 are being unnecessarily implicated in false cases registered by the police on the motion made by the party respondents. They are made accused in seven cases. They also point out that five cases have been registered against respondents 6 to 9. The petitioners submit, in view of the orders of the Apex Court, the party respondents have no legal right to interfere with the management of the affairs of the company. The commissions and omissions of respondents 6 to 9 on 3.5.2008 will amount to interfering with the management of the company. Further, the said respondents are indulging in criminal activities. So, the police have a duty to intervene and grant necessary protection to the petitioners. Therefore, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to take appropriate measures to give adequate and sufficient police protection to the second petitioner to run the hotel Windsor Castle, Kodimatha, Kottayam, owned by the 1st petitioner company and to prevent illegal entry of respondents 6 to 9 in the said premises and commission of crimes in the hotel premises. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 -4- writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to issue necessary directions to 4th and 5th respondents to refrain from harassing the petitioners and their staff any further and not to summon the petitioners and their staff any further and not to summon the petitioners and their staff to the police station without following the procedure established by law.” 2. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the writ petition. In said the affidavit, it is stated that respondents 6 to 9 are still the Directors of the company. The 2nd petitioner's claim that he is the Managing Director, is not admitted by them. The 6th respondent has denied all the allegations against him and other party respondents. Regarding the incident on 3.5.2008, the said respondent has submitted that he has been allotted and has been using room No.409 of Hotel Windsor Castle, run by the 1st petitioner company, as per the policy decision of the management, from the beginning of the functioning of the hotel. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner was allotted room No.201 in the said hotel for his use. On 3.5.2008, when the 6th respondent entered his room, it was found that strangers were occupying it and the records kept there were missing. When the 6th respondent went to the reception and complained about the incident, the 2nd petitioner and W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 -5- others tried to snatch away the key of his room by use of force. He was threatened and abused by the persons present there along with the 2nd petitioner. So, he filed a complaint before the police on 3.5.2008 as Ext.R6(b). Based on that, a crime has been registered against the 2nd petitioner. The petitioners 2 and 3 are accused in several crimes. One of them is for manhandling the local Sub Inspector of Police. Ext.R6(i) is the F.I.R registered in the said incident. The 6th respondent further submits that the intention of filing this petition for police protection is to drive respondents 6 to 9 out from the premises of the hotel and to deny them the rights flowing from the orders of the Apex Court. 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions submitted that 10 crimes have been registered against the 2nd petitioner and others and 7 crimes have been registered against the party respondents. The police have acted promptly, as and when offences were reported. The official respondents also deny the allegation of the 2nd petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the crimes registered by the police. Further, it is submitted, proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C have been initiated against both the parties. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that both the parties have executed bonds before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, undertaking to keep peace. 4. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit, dealing with the W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 -6- averments in the counter affidavit of the 6th respondent. It is also stated in the reply affidavit that the persons arrested along with the 2nd petitioner were not goondas, but employees of the hotel. 5. The dispute between the petitioners and respondents 6 to 9 is a civil dispute concerning the right to manage the affairs of the 1st petitioner company. The Apex Court has already passed orders, as per Exhibit P8 providing for the interim management of the affairs of the hotel run by the company. If the said order is violated by any of the parties, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to move the Apex Court and not to approach the local police. The police have no authority or jurisdiction to meddle in this dispute. The police cannot be authorised to consider whether there is any violation of the order of the Apex Court and to take remedial action. In this case, the petitioners have moved this Court for police protection, based on an incident, which allegedly, took place on 3.5.2008. The party respondents and the police give a different version about the said incident. In this jurisdiction, we cannot decide which of the versions is correct. Therefore, we think, it is not proper for this Court to issue any direction to the police, based on the alleged incident that took place on 3.5.2008. Further, we notice that the police have promptly taken action whenever cognizable offences were reported. They have altogether registered 17 crimes. Every accused in a criminal W.P.(C)No. 14228/08 -7- case will plead that he is innocent and the other side is at fault. But, we cannot go into such disputes in this proceedings. It is for the competent criminal court to decide all such contentions. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and counter allegations, we are not persuaded to pass any order, directing the police to involve themselves in this dispute in favour of one side or the other. So, the prayer for an order for police protection is declined. But, needless to say, as and when cognizable offences are reported by either side, we are sure, the police will take effective action in accordance with law and if found necessary, the police will take action under Section 149 Cr.P.C also, to prevent commission of cognizable offences. As mentioned earlier, the police have been taking action promptly in the past. So, it is unnecessary to issue any direction to the police as to how they should deal with the commission of cognizable offences. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn