IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34453 of 2010(F) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. EAPEN MATHEW,MADHUMRAMPOIKAYIL, KALLEPULLY POST,MARUTHA ROAD VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 2. ELIZABETH,D/O.MATHEW MADHUMRAMPOIKAYIL, KALLEPULLY POST,MARUTHA ROAD VILLAGE,PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, EAPEN MATHEW,MADHUMRAMPOIKAYIL,KALLEPULLY ROAD, MARUTHA ROAD VILLAGE,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MALAMPUZHA, POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD. PIN: 678 651. 2. THE CIRCLE-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR,PALAKKAD. 678 001. 3. THE DEPUTY-SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. PIN: 678 001. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,PALAKKAD. PIN: 678 001. 5. MATHEWS M.MATHEW,PAZHAYAKALAM, YAKKARA,PALAKKAD. PIN: 678 506. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.34453 OF 2010 F PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS; EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.11.2010 AND ITS RECEIPT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS; NIL. //True copy// PS to Judge K.M. JOSEPH & M. C. HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 34453 OF 2010 F ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd November, 2010. JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief: “Issue a direction or order or writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 4 to render adequate and effective police protection to life, liberty and property of the petitioners and their family members” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: Petitioners and fifth respondent are siblings. The second petitioner is residing in United Kingdom and is now on her visit to her native place. There is animosity for the fifth respondent towards the petitioners. The properties of their late father were divided among the legal heirs, including the petitioners and the W.P.(C).NO.34453/2010 F 2 fifth respondent. They are in actual enjoyment of the properties so devolved. The fifth respondent unlawfully obstructed the way to the property of the second respondent (second petitioner). He has no right to obstruct the pathway. It is stated that the fifth respondent with some known goondas in the locality came to the house of the first petitioner and threatened him that he will do away with the life of the first petitioner and that he will not permit the second respondent (it is the second petitioner, submits the learned counsel) to return back to her place. It is also threatened that he will implicate her in a false criminal case. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that there is a dispute in relation to the property which has to be resolved in accordance with law before the competent Forum. At any rate, he submits that the fifth respondent has no intention to cause any threat to the life of the W.P.(C).NO.34453/2010 F 3 petitioners. We record the said submission and close the Writ Petition. However, we make it clear that if the matter comes up before the competent civil court, the said court will proceed to decide the matter untrammeled by anything contained in this Judgment. We also make it clear that we have not pronounced on the allegations made by the petitioners. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE kbk. //True copy// PS to Judge W.P.(C).NO.34453/2010 F 4