IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20923 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KOCHURANI THOMAS,EDAKKATT HOUSE, KAVUMBAGAM KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.THOMAS SRI.ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA SRI.BABY THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPALLY,KOTTAYAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANIMALA POLICE STATION,KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANIMALA POLICE STATION,KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 6. CHACKO CHACKO, KOCHIDAKKAT VAYALIL,KAVUMBAGAM,KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. A.V.MATHEW ,NARYTHOOKIL, (ANITHOTTAM) CHUNKAPARA, KANJIRAPALLY,KOTTAYAM. 8. JOPPACHAN, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, PAZHAYIDAM, KANJIRAPALLY,KOTTAYAM. 9. DEEPU MATHEW, NARITHOOKI, (ANITHOTTAM) CHUNKAPPARA, KANJIRAPALLY,KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1-5 ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA FOR R6-9 SMT.ROSAMMA MATHEW FOR R6-9 SRI.K.THAVAMONY FOR R6-9 SRI.R.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI FOR R6-9 SRI.PRATHEUSH.M.ANAND FOR R6-9 SRI.ANZAR BASHEER FOR R6-9 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20923 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND IT'S RECEIPT DT.18.6.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER DT.23.6.2010 PASSED IN O.S.148/10 BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANJIRAPALLY EXT.P3 : A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND ITS RECEIPT DT.24.62010 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT, FAX RECEIPT, AND POSTAL RECEIPT DT.25.6.2010 REGARDING THE SENDING TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DT.25.6.10 REGARDING THE SENDING OF COPY OF EXT.P4 COMPLAINT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R7(a) : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EXCHANGE DEED NO.1369/2005. // TRUE COPY // K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 20923 of 2010 M - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs: a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction directing respondents 1 to 5 to render adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner, her family members, her staff and to her property. b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction directing respondents 1 to 5 to take appropriate action in accordance with law on Edxts.P1, P3, P4 and P5 complaints. c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction directing respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that Ext.P2 injunction is not violated by respondents 6 to 9 and their henchmen. W.P.(C).No. 20923 of 2010 2 2. Briefly case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is a widow. She is residing with her father-in-law, aged 87 years. She has three children. Two of them are daughters, who are married and they are staying away from her house. Her only son is studying in Chennai. Respondents 6 to 9 are very close neighbours of the petitioner and their land is abutting her land. 3. The 6th respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for realisation of damages and for prohibitory injunction. The suit was dismissed. So was the appeal filed against the judgment in the suit. It is while appeal, A.S. 410 of 2007, was pending that the 6th respondent sold the property to respondents 7 to 9. The petitioner alleges that on 15.6.2010 respondents 6 to 9 and their men encroached into the land of the petitioner, which is abutting the road of the 6th respondent and destroyed the boundary wall (kayyala) for widening the road of the 6th respondent. It is stated that the 6th respondent was convicted under Sections 308 and 326 I.P.C. for attacking the staff of the petitioner. W.P.(C).No. 20923 of 2010 3 4. Ext.P2 is the interim order passed by the Munsiff Court on 23.6.2010 restraining the defendants therein from trespassing into the plaint schedule items 1 and 2 properties, from demolishing the boundaries and from committing any act of waste until further orders. Allegations are made against the events which took place on 24.6.2010. Petitioner filed Exts.P3, P4 and P5 complaints. 5. A counter affidavit was filed by the 7th respondent, to which a reply affidavit was also filed. 6. We heard learned counsel for the parties, including the learned Government Pleader. 7. It is the common case that Ext.P2 interim order is an ex parte order passed on 23.6.2010. Therefore the petitioner cannot seek assistance of this Court to enforce such an order. 8. Learned counsel for respondents 6 to 9 would point out that there are civil disputes pending between the parties. He would further submit that respondents 6 to 9 are residing far away from the W.P.(C).No. 20923 of 2010 4 property and they have absolutely no intention to cause any threat to the lives of the petitioner and her father-in-law. 9. We record the said submission and dispose of the Writ Petition relegating the petitioner to pursue her remedies before the Civil Court. We further direct that in case the petitioner complains of commission of any cognizable offence by respondents 6 to 9, the 5th respondent shall take action in accordance with law. We also make it clear that the civil court will be free to decide the issue untramelled by anything contained in this judgment. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm