IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6938 of 2011(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NANDINI HARIKRISHNAN, AGED 46, W/O.DR.HARIKRISHNAN, T.C.9/1843(3), NARAYANEEYAM, AISWARYA GARDEN, KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.ARJUN S.RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HOMDE AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM CITY - 695001. 3. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM (SHANKUMUGHAM),O/O THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM - 695001. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM - 695001. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM - 695001. 6. SAJEEVAN, AGED 47, S/O.DAVID, SAUMYA HOUSE, ARUVAKODE P.O., KARITHALAKKAL, PAPPANAMCODE, TRIVANDRUM - 695002. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER: SMT. C.M. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C. NO. 6938 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 24.02.2011 SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT P2: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26/02/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT P3: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION PREFERRED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY SM P.A. TO JUDGE R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.6938 of 2011-N ***************************** Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition claiming issue of directions to respondents 1 to 5 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to afford protection to the petitioner to complete the construction of a compound wall between th property of the petitioner and her neighbour against contumacious, culpable and violent acts of respondent No.6. 2. According to the petitioner, she wanted to construct a compound wall separating her property from her neighbour's property. The 6th respondent, a contractor, was engaged to do the work. According to the petitioner, belting process alone has been completed by the 6th respondent. But the petitioner did not want the work to be completed by the 6th respondent. The petitioner got better offers to complete the construction on lesser cost. The petitioner, in these circumstances, wanted to settle the claim of the 6th respondent and get the work done W.P(C) No.6938 of 2011-E 2 through some others. According to the petitioner, she settled all the claims with the 6th respondent. There is nothing that remains to be paid to the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent is illegally raising obstruction against completion of the construction by the petitioner through others. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 3. Respondent No.6, though served, has not chosen to enter appearance. In these circumstances, we turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is true that the petitioner had entered into an arrangement with the 6th respondent to construct the compound wall. The compound wall remains half finished now. The petitioner does not want the 6th respondent to complete the construction. The 6th respondent raised disputes. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner and the 6th respondent had agreed and had entered into an agreement to complete the construction. In these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is absolutely no law and order situation arises now. There is no necessity to issue W.P(C) No.6938 of 2011-E 3 any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Disputes, if any, between the parties will have to be resolved by resort to the civil legal process. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The conclusion appears to be irresistible that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent about the half constructed compound wall. Though the petitioner asserts that there is no dispute at all between him and the 6th respondent about the construction of the compound wall, it is difficult to swallow that explanation. The petitioner asserts that he has paid the entire amount due to the 6th respondent in connection with the work already completed. We are unable to agree that the 6th respondent does not have any further rights in the matter. It is true that the 6th respondent, even after receipt of notice, has not chosen to come before this Court. But such conduct on the part of the 6th respondent cannot persuade this Court to assume jurisdiction over the subject matter. 5. We must alertly remind ourselves that we are called upon to invoke and exercise our extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226. The inference appears to be W.P(C) No.6938 of 2011-E 4 inescapable from the facts placed before the Court that about an incomplete contract, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. Since the 6th respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court, the precise details of the dispute cannot be ascertained. However, submissions of the learned Government Pleader suggest that there has been subsequent agreement between the parties to complete the work on terms agreed upon afresh. We do not intend to go into that question in this matter. We are not persuaded to issue any direction to arm the petitioner with an order of police protection to complete the construction as desired by her. 6. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But we may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate relief against the 6th respondent by instituting appropriate proceedings before appropriate court/fora. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/