IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24586 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SEBASTIAN GEORGE VADAKKEVEETTIL ITTIYAPPANVILLA PUTHIYAKAVU, MAVELIKKARA BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. K. BALAKRISHNAN KALLUKUZHIPARAMBIL KOTTARAKAVU, MAVELIKKARA 690 101 2. VALSALA KUMARI, W/O. BALAKRISHNAN KALLUKUZHIPARAMBIL KOTTARAKAVU, MAVELIKKARA 670 101 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA 690 001. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MAVELIKKARA 690 101. 5. MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY, MAVELIKKARA 690 101 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI. T K VIPINDAS FOR R3&4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 24586 of 2010 W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 3 and 4 to give sufficient police protection to petitioner and his family members for their life and property. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 3 and 4 to give sufficient protection to petitioner for protecting his rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No. 24586 of 2010 2 ii) to restrain respondents 1 and 2 from causing obstruction to the free ingress and egress to petitioner's residence. iv) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the third respondent to conider and pass orders on Ext.P4.” 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is in possession of 1 are and 52 sq. meters of property under Ext.P1 Sale Deed. The first respondent, who is his adjacent property owner, filed a complaint to the fifth respondent Municipality alleging that the compound wall of the petitioner is in a dangerous condition. By Ext.P2 order the 5th respondent directed the petitioner to demolish the wall constructed. The petitioner is prepared to comply with Ext.P2. By demolishing the existing compound wall he wanted to construct a new compound wall. The 5th respondent, after considering the matter, W.P.(C).No. 24586 of 2010 3 granted permission to the petitioner as per Ext.P3. It is stated that now respondents 1 and 2 are not permitting the petitioner to construct the wall and they threatened the petitioner that they will do away with the life of the petitioner and his family members. They also used obscene language against the petitioner. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 before the third respondent. 3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri,A.K. Alex. 4. The essential prayer in this Writ Petition is protection for the property of the petitioner so that he can put up the new compound wall. We feel that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy as against respondents 1 and 2. In the nature of the case, we would think that it is more appropriate that the petitioner is relegated to approach the competent civil court for seeking appropriate relief as against respondents 1 and 2. W.P.(C).No. 24586 of 2010 4 5. We dispose of the Writ Petition relegating the petitioner to approach the competent civil court seeking appropriate relief. However, we direct that if the petitioner complains of commission of any cognizable offence by respondents 1 and 2 before the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent shall take effective action in accordance with law. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm