IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16465 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MATHAI, AGED 63, S/O.LATE VARGHESE, RESIDING AT NEDUMTHALIL HOUSE, MEKKAD P.O., ATHANI, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN SRI.M.N.SANJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TVM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL ALUVA. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION. 4. GEORGE, AGED 85, S/O.VARKEY, PUTHUVA(H), KIDANGOOR KARA, THURAVOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 5. VARGHESE, AGED 50, S/O.GEORGE, PUTHUVA(H), KIDANGOOR KARA, THURAVOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 6. JOSE, AGED 45, S/O.GEORGE, PUTHUVA(H), KIDANGOOR KARA, THURAVOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 7. THRESSIAMMA, AGED 45, W/O.VARGHESE PUTHUVA(H), KIDANGOOR KARA, THURAVOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY SR.GP MR.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition (C) No.16465 of 2008-I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this court, feeling aggrieved by the alleged omission of the police to grant protection to him against the high handed actions of respondents 4 to 7. He is having a property in the neighbourhood of the above said respondents. He obtained it under court auction. When the party respondents tried to trespass into the property, he moved the civil court and obtained Ext.P3 decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against them. Notwithstanding that decree, the respondents are continuing their illegal actions in relation to that property and when the petitioner goes there, they are threatening him also. In the above background, the petitioner preferred Exts.P4 and P6 representations, seeking police protection and thereafter this Writ Petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. If the petitioner wants to enforce Ext.P3 decree against the party respondents, the forum he must approach is not the local police station, but the competent civil court, having jurisdiction over the area. This is a writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus against the police. It pre-supposes the failure of WPC 16465/08 2 duty from the part of the police to discharge their statutory duties. The police have no statutory duty to enforce the decrees of civil courts or to take actions against the persons, who violate such decrees. Therefore, the prayer for mandamus cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE 03.06.2008 M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE sta WPC 16465/08 3