IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 178 of 2011(V) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- RAJENDRAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, R/AT MANAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KADAKKATTU MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SRI.P.Y.AHAMMED PHYSI SMT.PRINCY XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ADOOR - 689 501. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM - 680 501. 3. SUB INSPECTOR, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM - 689 501. 4. RAJASEKHARA KURUP, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. VASUPILLAI, R/AT ELLATHAYYATH (ARYA BHAVAN), KADAKATTU MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 501. 5. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT THAZHEKATTU REMYA BHAVAN, KADAKATTU MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 501. 6. JAYAKUMAR, AGED 41, S/O. VASU PILLAI, R/AT JYOTHIS, KADAKATTU MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 501. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 178 of 2011-V ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner against respondents 4 to 6 who are allegedly indulging in contumacious, culpable and violent conduct. Police protection for the life and property of the petitioner is claimed. 2. This is not the first time that the petitioner is coming to this Court seeking protection. There evidently is a civil (property) dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 4 to 6 on the other. The petitioner has already gone to the civil court with Ext.P1 suit and Ext.P2 interim order has been passed by the civil court directing maintenance of status quo. It is further submitted that status quo as on the W.P.(C) No. 178 of 2011 -: 2 :- date of that order had been ascertained by the civil court by deputing a Commissioner. Commissioner's report has been received. On an earlier occasion when the petitioner came to this Court, this Court had issued specific directions that the police shall not interfere in any civil dispute between parties. 3. What is the present grievance of the petitioner? According to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 6 are indulging in contumacious violation of the interim order of the civil court directing maintenance of status quo. A perusal of the petition and the documents produced clearly reveal that the crux or the gravamen of the grievance of the petitioner is that there has been violation of Ext.P2 interim order directing maintenance of status quo. 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that the police is not interfering in the civil dispute between the parties. If a party has a grievance that the order of the civil court is being violated, the party must approach the civil court and cannot expect the police to resolve such controversies between parties invoking and exercising the executive powers of the police. In these circumstances, the W.P.(C) No. 178 of 2011 -: 3 :- learned Government Pleader submits that no directions can, need or deserve to be issued. 5. We are in agreement with the learned Government Pleader. Grievance about violation/non-compliance of Ext.P2 order must be raised before the court which passed the order and appropriate further directions must be sought. It is for the civil court to issue such directions. 6. The petitioner raises a further grievance that in the conduct of the respondents violating Ext.P2 order they are also indulging in contumacious, culpable and violent acts. We have gone through the complaints received. There are incidental allegations of verbal abuses etc. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of respondents 1 to 3 no allegations warranting cognizance by the police have been raised. If there be any allegations revealing the commission of offence, certainly respondents 1 to 3 shall take appropriate and necessary action in accordance with law, submits the learned Government Pleader. 7. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We accept the submission/undertaking of the learned Government Pleader. W.P.(C) No. 178 of 2011 -: 4 :- We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. 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