IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19208 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- ROY MATHEW, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW PAMPLANIYIL HOUSE,BHARANANGANAM PO, PALA VIA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686 578. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION, ADIMALY VIA IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 563. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 603. 3. AJIMON, S/O. KO CHACKO, KAIYALATHU HOUSE NEDUNGADAPILLI PO, KUNNAMTHANAM VILLAGE, MALAPPILLI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN 656 545. 4. GODLY DEV, S/O.PASTER JC DEV CHITTILAPPILLI HOUSE, KANIYANKUNNU BHAGOM NEDUMNADAPPILLI PO, KOOTHRAPPILLI VILLAGE CHANGANASSERY VIA PIN 656 545. ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19208 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1778/06 DT.6.6.06 OF SRO, DEVIKULAM. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE WILL DT.29.12.2004 OF SMT.K.O.ANNAMMA. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SMT.K.O.ANNAMMA, ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF DEATH AND BIRTH, VELLATHOOVAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, BEARING NO.B5-130/01 DT.28.11.2005. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.11.07.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.07.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /True copy/ R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(c) No.19208 of 2011-A ***************************** Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of an item of property as per sale deed dated 06.06.2006 executed in his favour, has come to this Court with this petition for issue of appropriate directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2, though police officials in Idukki district, to afford protection to the life and person of the petitioner from threats which he perceives from respondents 3 and 4. 2. According to the petitioner, his vendor has absolute rights over the property conveyed to him under the document dated 06.06.2006. That vendor in turn claimed rights under a Will executed by the deceased testator, to whom the property originally belonged. According to the petitioner, there is no dispute whatsoever about his right, title or interest over the property so purchased by him from the legatee of the original owner/testator. The 3rd respondent, one of the legal heirs of the deceased testator, in collusion with his friend - the 4th respondent, is now threatening and intimidating the petitioner. W.P(c) No.19208 of 2011-A 2 He is demanding fanciful amounts from the petitioner. The petitioner is unwilling to pay the same. The petitioner's refusal/reluctance to pay the amount is attracting acts of intimidation and violence from the 3rd and 4th respondents. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this prayer for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to him, respondents 1 and 2, police officials, are not invoking the powers vested in them under law. Hence directions are prayed for. 3. Respondent No.3 has entered appearance through a counsel. The allegations are totally denied. The 3rd respondent does not accept the alleged Will executed by his predecessor in interest. That alleged Will is an unregistered Will, points out the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. At any rate, the 3rd respondent does not intend to take law into his hands and threaten or intimidate the petitioner in any manner. The petitioner is attempting to steal a march over the 3rd respondent in the civil dispute between the parties. The petitioner may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of police protection which is likely to be misutilised for oppression against the 3rd respondent in the civil dispute between them. The learned W.P(c) No.19208 of 2011-A 3 counsel for the 3rd respondent assures the Court that the 3rd respondent shall not in any way attempt to resolve the disputes by resort to violence. That assumption is unreal. The petitioner resides in Kottayam district. The 3rd respondent resides in Pathanamthitta district and the property is situated in Idukki district. The totality of circumstances must eloquently betray the assumed apprehension of the petitioner, points out the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 4. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner within their jurisdiction. At any rate, no directions under Article 226 are liable to be issued. If there be any specific instance of contumacious or culpable conduct against the petitioner, the petitioner can complain and respondents 1 and 2 shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with law, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. Evidently there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. It is for the petitioner and/or the 3rd respondent to take necessary steps to settle their civil disputes by resort to the W.P(c) No.19208 of 2011-A 4 civil litigative process. We find absolutely no reason for this Court to issue any directions which would even remotely help either side in the resolution of the civil dispute between them. Without taking steps for resolution of the basic disputes, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain of an alleged threat to his person consequent to the civil dispute and persuade this Court to issue any directions under Article 226. 6. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no directions deserve to be issued in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution. We may hasten to observe that in coming to this conclusion we have taken note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that while the police do not in any manner intend to intervene in the civil dispute between the parties, allegations of commission of crimes if any by either side shall be dealt with in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/