IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29789 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ASHA AJIKUMAR, AGED 33, W/O.AJIKUMAR, R/AT MALAYUDE THEKKETHIL VEEDU, THONNALLOOR MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, PIN-689 501. BY ADVS. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL), SMT.PRINCY XAVIER. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. RAJAN, AGED 40, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, MALAYUDE THEKKETHIL, THONNALLOOR MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, PIN-689 501. 4. MOHANAN, AGED 50, MOOLAKKAL VEEDU, THONNALLOOR MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, PIN-689 501. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.29789 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Having regard to the order being issued hereunder, notice to the private respondents dispensed with, preserving their right for re-hearing of the matter, if aggrieved. Learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. 2.The petitioner states that she is the wife of a Jawan, now on duty at Jammu & Kashmir and that she has three children and her aged mother-in-law also resides with her occasionally. She sets up a case that the private respondents are obstructing her attempt to put up a boundary wall. She attributes respondents 3 and 4 with political cloud and states that they have no reason to interfere. She also says that the private respondents are agitated at the petitioner and her husband since the petitioner's husband refused to pay certain contribution. WPC.29789/10 2 3.Learned Government Pleader, on specific instructions, states that the allegation that there is obstruction from respondents 3 and 4 is not fully correct when there is obstruction from various other people who use a pathway through the side of the petitioner's property. He says that the private respondents are impleaded on the premise that they are political workers. But the fact of the matter is that persons who are essentially objecting to the putting up of the wall are not even impleaded. 4.In the aforesaid circumstance, all that could be done at this point of time is for the police to ensure that there is no harm to the person of the petitioner, her children and the mother-in- law, however, that the petitioner would not venture to have a boundary put up on the face of any legal objection or obstruction, except without obtaining appropriate clearance from the revenue authorities or the civil court as the case may be. This direction does not stand in the way of the petitioner finding ways and means for amicable settlement of the matter, WPC.29789/10 3 including by appropriate ADR measures. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.01/10.