IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5936 of 2011(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DEVIPRIYA W/O. ANANTHAKRISHNAN, AGED 32, RESIDING AT MANGALATHU HOUSE,PUTHANCHANTHA.P.O., VALLIKUNNAM MURI AND VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.P.RAJMOHAN SMT.SABINA JAYAN SMT.MINI.V.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLIKUNNAM, MAVELIKARA-690 501. 2. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT AMARADRIYIL HOUSE, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA-690 501. 3. SASIDHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VARIKOLIL MAVULLATHIL HOUSE, PUTHANCHANTHA.P.O., VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA-690 501. 4. THE VALLIKUNNAM PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-690 501. 5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 534. BY G.P. SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 5936 of 2011-N ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to the 1st respondent to prevent respondents 2 and 3 from undertaking an allegedly illegal construction. 2. According to the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 are attempting to undertake construction in the property belonging to a temple. According to him, the said construction is not legally permissible. The 4th respondent - Panchayat, had issued a stop memo. The petitioner had gone to the civil court seeking a decree and interim directions to restrain respondents 2 and 3 from proceeding with the construction. That suit is pending. No interim orders have been passed. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner complains that the 1st respondent is not taking necessary action to prevent respondents W.P.(C) No. 5936 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2 and 3 from undertaking the construction. 3. We have considered the submissions of the petitioner. The petitioner is already before the civil court. She has sought interim direction from the civil court against respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner has not succeeded so far in securing interim orders. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the police need not be permitted to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. The petitioner shall have to seek orders and secure orders from the civil court. If the direction of the 4th respondent - Panchayat, has not been observed by respondents 2 and 3, needless to say they will face appropriate consequences. At any rate, we are not satisfied that the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution can or need be invoked to issue any direction to the 1st respondent - Sub Inspector of Police, to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 2 and 3 on the other or for the enforcement of the order of the Panchayat. 4. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge