IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 37456 of 2007(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADY NORTH KARAM MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. CHANDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, -----DO-------- DO-----. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION,MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. GEORGE, S/O.THARIAN, KIZHINJALIL HOUSE, TAGOR NAGAR, N.G.O. QUARTERS, MUVATTUPUZHA -686661. 3. GEROGE, S/O.JOSEPH, MANNATHOOKARAN HOUSE, PRESIDENT, TAGOR NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, TAGOR NAGAR, N.G.O. QUARTERS, MUVATTUPUZHA -686661. 4. SUKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, DRAUPADHY NILAYAM, (VELANKUDI), HOUSE, SECRETARY,TAGOR NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, TAGOR NAGAR, N.G.O. QUARTERS, MUVATTUPUZHA -686661. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SALIM.P.A, ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR), SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.37456/2007-H: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MUVATTUPUZHA, DTD. 11/05/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED BY THE MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY ACCEPTING EXT.P.1. DT. NIL. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 19/09/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE POND IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT EXT.P.3. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE R.D.O. MUVATTUPUZHA DT. 07/11/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADY VILLAGE TO THE R.D.O. MUVATTUPUZHA DTD. 17/11/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY DT. 16/11/2007. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.1075/2007 OF THE POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 19/12/2007. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE R.1. ACCEPTING EXT.P.9. ON 21/12/2007. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE WITNESS NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, THRIKARIYOOR. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER IN D.B.A. NO 97/2004 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DT. 22/09/2004. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY ADV: ANANTHA PADMANABHAN IN O.S. NO. 196/99 OF THE SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DT. 10/01/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION BEFORE MUNICIPAL CHAIRPERSON ON 21/11/06. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT.P.5 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DTD. 21/01/08. EXT.R2.C: COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT.P.6 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DTD. 21/01/08. //TRUE COPY// prv. K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.P(C).No.37456 of 2007 ======================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioners are father and son. They have approached this Court alleging that they require protection to their life in view of the alleged threat from the part of respondents 2 to 4, who are residing in their neighbourhood. The averments in the writ petition are the following: 2. The petitioners own a pond by the side of the residential building of the second respondent. The second respondent is throwing waste into the said pond. Ext.P4 is the photograph of the pond filled with waste. Against the said act, the first petitioner moved the Revenue Divisional Officer and also the Municipal Secretary. He has also filed a petition before the police. The petitioners submit that the Village Officer has submitted a report, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P6, before the Revenue Divisional Officer substantially supporting the grievance raised in Ext.P5 representation filed by the first petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer has issued notice to the party respondents WP(C) 37456/07 -: 2 :- herein. In view of the said dispute, the respondents are threatening the second petitioner. 3. On 2.12.2007, respondents 2 to 4 along with others trespassed into the property of the petitioners and committed waste. On 15.12.2007, when the second petitioner was returning home in the evening, they attempted to manhandle him, but he ran away and made his escape. Their attempt is to compel the first petitioner to withdraw the complaint filed by him before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Ext.P9 is the petition filed by the petitioners before the Sub Inspector seeking protection to them from the criminal action of the party respondents. Since the police did not extend any helping hand, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is submitted that the second petitioner is a criminal against whom several crimes have been registered and finally proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code have also been initiated. According to the police, the party respondents are respectable persons of the locality. The second petitioner is causing nuisance and the allegation of the petitioners is unfounded, it is submitted. 5. The second respondent on his behalf and also on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 has also filed a counter affidavit submitting that they are respectable persons of the locality and because of the nuisance created by the petitioners they have filed petitions against them before the authorities concerned. It is WP(C) 37456/07 -: 3 :- also submitted that the second respondent or the other respondents are not throwing any waste into the pond. The petitioners have reclaimed the adjacent paddy field illegally and in that process the pond was partially filled up. The petitioners are responsible for throwing waste into the pond and the said pond filled up with waste is causing nuisance in the locality. They have also denied all the allegations of the petitioners raised against them in the writ petition. 6. The second petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of I.A. No.48 of 2008 praying to receive certain additional documents. The second petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit. He submits that the allegations made against the petitioners in the counter affidavit are unfounded. Section 107 proceedings against them have already been closed. The criminal cases have been filed because of the enmity created in the minds of some of the people of the locality against whom the petitioners have filed civil cases, it is submitted. 7. We heard learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and counter allegations, we feel that this Court should not invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to order protection to the petitioners. They may invoke the ordinary civil and criminal remedies available to them to redress their grievance under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed without WP(C) 37456/07 -: 4 :- prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 6/3