IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7514 of 2011(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU, S/O.S.A.RANGANATHA PRABHU, AGED 61 YEARS, "ANJALI", VEEKSHANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018. BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM, SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEAR BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, NEAR BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM. 5. SRI.BALRAM.G.MENON, S/O.DR.SUNDARI G.MENON,"DHANYA", VEEKSHANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 018. 6. DR.SUNDARI.G.MENON, W/O. LATE GOPINATHA MENON,"DHANYA", VEEKSHANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH.R, SC, COCHIN CORPORATION R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.VIJAYAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.7514/2011 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE OFFICIALS DTD. 19/10/2009. P2: COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT TO THE POLICE OFFICIALS DTD.23/10/2009. P3: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE OFFICIALS DTD. 07/07/2010. P4: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE OFFICIALS DTD. 12/07/2010. P5: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CORPORATION AND HEALTH OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION DTD. 14/10/2010. P6: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DTD. 29/11/2010. P7: COPY OF COVERING LETTER SENT TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DTD. 29/11/2010. P8: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DTD. 22/11/2010. P9: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DTD. 06/12/2010. P10: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S WIFE BEFORE THE VANITHA CELL DTD. 28/01/2011. P11: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE OFFICIALS DTD. 28/01/2011. P12: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CORPORATION AND HEALTH OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION DTD. 28/01/2011. P13: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE OFFICIALS DTD. 31/01/2011. P14: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 27/02/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.7514 of 2011-L ***************************** Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner, an Advocate of standing, has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner against the alleged illegal, contumacious and culpable conduct of respondents 5 and 6. 2. The advocate/petitioner has his residence and office together. Respondents 5 and 6 are neighbours of the petitioner. They are son and mother respectively. The son runs a security services activity in the adjacent house. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct not precisely of respondents 5 and 6, but of employees engaged by the 5th respondent. The petitioner complains that he has been constrained to endure improper, culpable, wanton and objectionable conduct of the employees of respondents 5 and 6. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 3. Respondents 5 and 6 have entered appearance before this Court through counsel. The learned counsel submits that all W.P(C) No.7514 of 2011-L 2 the allegations raised are false and incorrect. Respondents 5 and 6 are not guilty of any such conduct as alleged by the petitioner. It is not necessary to pass any order for police protection against respondents 5 and 6. But if the Court so feels, respondents 5 and 6 have no objection in any order of police protection being granted in favour of the petitioner. But there is no need or necessity to issue any such order, submits the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6. 4. In these circumstances, we turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is disagreement between the neighbours. Complaint of the petitioner has already been received. It was not found that any crime has been committed or any crime need be registered. Parties were called and advised to keep good neighbourly relationship. In the perception of the police officials, there is no need for initiation of any action by the police in the given circumstances. If there be any specific complaint about culpable and violent conduct amounting to any offence, the police shall take necessary action, submits the learned Government Pleader. W.P(C) No.7514 of 2011-L 3 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The neighbours are evidently not in harmony. We are not persuaded to agree that any blanket direction under Article 226 of the Constitution can or need be issued. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any culpable conduct amounting to an offence warranting action by the police, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain to the police officials, who, it has been undertaken shall take necessary action. 6. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/