IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 21736 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MARY, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O GEORGE, RESIDING AT KANNADIKARA HOUSE,KOOLIVAYAL, CHERUKATTOOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 3. THE POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, WAYANAD, KALPETTA NORTH. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANANTHAVADY. 5. JOSEPH PAREKKATTIL, AGED AND FATHERS'S NAME NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT PAREKATTIL HOUSE, KOOLIVAYAL, CHERUKATTOR,WAYANAD DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.21736/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE WAYANAD DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MANANTHAVADY, DT.08.05.2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PETITION DT.02.07.2007 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.02.07.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.18.09.2007 TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21736 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner submits she is a widow. She is blind also. To eke out a living she along with her son started a furniture business. For that, timber worth Rs.21,000/- was purchased from the 5th respondent. Since her son was inexperienced, the 5th respondent cheated him by giving substandard timber. Therefore, the furniture manufactured from the said timber was returned by the customers. When this fact was brought to the notice of the 5th respondent, he did not repay the amount or replace the timber by quality timber. Instead, he filed a petition before the police, alleging that the petitioner and her son failed to pay the amount due to him. Based on that complaint, the 3rd respondent started summoning them to the police station repeatedly. There were threatened that they will be implicated in criminal cases unless they pay the amount to the 5th respondent. The petitioner brought this fact to notice of the District Collector by filing Ext.P2 representation. A copy of the W.P.(C) No.21736/2008 2 same was filed before the District Superintendent of police also as evident from Ext.P3 receipt. Alleging that the District Superintendent did not take any action to prevent the harassment, this writ petition is filed. 2. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According to him, after receiving an advance amount of Rs.600/- the 5th respondent delivered the timber. To wriggle out of the liability to pay the balance amount, the petitioner has made the allegation that the timber is substandard and the allegations in Ext.P2 are unfounded. The petitioner's son promised to pay the amount within one month of the delivery of the timber. Since he failed to do that, the 5th respondent moved the police seeking appropriate reliefs. 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that on receipt of complaint from the 5th respondent the petitioner's son was summoned once. He came along with his mother. On realising that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute, both of them were directed to approach the civil W.P.(C) No.21736/2008 3 court. The police denied the allegations of the petitioner. It is also submitted that thereafter the petitioner's son was not summoned to the police station. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that the police have no intention to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader and the writ petition is disposed of. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps