IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20504 of 2010(K) ------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PRASANNA, 30 YEARS, D/O.SREMATHY, PINKI BUILDING, NEAR POLICE STATION, VENJARAMOODU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.ZIYAD SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. S.I.OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. DYSP. OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. RAMANAN, PINKI TRAVELS VEEDU, ALANTHARA, VENJARAMOODU P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. R3 BY ADVOCATE SHRI T. R. HARIKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.20504 OF 2010 K PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.207/2010 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT NO.401/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.705/2010 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 20504 OF 2010 K --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd July, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “1) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and effective protection to the petitioner to reside in the building without any obstruction of the third respondent and his agent; 2) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner to reside in the building with peaceful atmosphere and without any threatening from the part of the third respondent.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the tenant of the third respondent. However, the third respondent has taken away the tenancy agreement and WPC20504/2010 k 2 destroyed. It is submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to reside in the tenanted premises. There is no dispute that a Suit has been filed in the civil court and therein, an Application for Injunction was also filed. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, besides the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that actually the petitioner is not a tenant. Secondly, the petitioner has vacated. Learned Government Pleader also points out that the petitioner has already vacated. 4. In the circumstances of this case, the only order we can pass is to relegate the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the competent civil court. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the competent civil court, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, we make it clear that if the petitioner has complained or complains of commission of any WPC20504/2010 k 3 cognizable offence by the party respondent, the official respondent concerned shall take action in accordance with law. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge