IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 14768 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. P.P. THAMPI, AGED 73, S/O. KUNJOONJU, GURUMANDIRAM HOUSE, ELAPPARA, PEERUMADE TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SARASAMMA,AGED 70, W/O. P.P.THAMBI GURUMANDIRAM HOUSE, ELAPPARA,PEERUMADE TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON SRI.JOMON K.CHACKO RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERUMADE 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. 3. RAJENDRAN, MANAGER, TYFORD TEA COMPANY LTD, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. SUNDER RAJAN, ASSISTANT MANAGER FAIR FIELD DIVISION, TYFORD TEA COMPANY LTD, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. PERIYA SWAMY, S/O. SHANMUGAM, FAIR FIELD DIVISION, TYFORD TEA COMPANY LTD, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, FAIR FIELD DIVISION, TYFORD TEA COMPANY LTD, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. W.P.(C) NO14768/2008 7. SAHAYAM, WATCHER,FAIR FIELD DIVISION, TYFORD TEA COMPANY LTD, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 8. RAVI,S/O. MADASWAMY,FAIR FIELD DIVISION, TYFORD TEA COMPANY LTD, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) FOR R3 TO 8 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.14768/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.204/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.28.4.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R3A: COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE IYE AND LOCATION OF THE PROPERTIES OF TYFORD TEA COMPANY. EXT.R3B: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.399/2001 DT.23.2.2005. EXT.R3C; COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.613/2004 DT.16.1.2006. EXT.R3D: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.22.4.2008 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14768 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are husband and wife. They say they are aged and infirm. There is a dispute between them and Tyford Tea Company Ltd. regarding the title and ownership of an item of property in Survey No.34/V of Elappara village. The suit filed by the above said Tea Company seeking an injunction against the petitioners and others was dismissed by the Munsiff court. Now, an appeal preferred by the Company is pending before the Sub court. The respondents 3 to 8 are officers and employees of the Company. They are trespassing into the residential compound of the petitioners and threatening them frequently. Therefore, they have moved the police several times. The last of the incident took place on 28.4.2008. Immediately, the petitioners preferred Ext.P2 petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Peerumade, seeking necessary protection to their life and thereafter this writ petition was filed W.P.(C) No.14768/2008 2 praying for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to grant adequate protection to their life. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that Ext.P2 petition was not received by the police. But, a complaint dated 3.5.2008 was received in the police station alleging that the watchman of the aforementioned Company used filthy language against the petitioners. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioners are trying to trespass into an item of property owned by the Tyford Tea Company. Though the suit filed by it was dismissed, the appeal filed by the Company is pending. It is also pointed out that the criminal cases filed against the officials of the Company have been dismissed by the competent criminal court. The 1st petitioner has preferred O.S.No.84/97 for recovery of possession of the property concerned. The same would show that the Company is in possession of the said property. W.P.(C) No.14768/2008 3 4. Since the police was not alerted by filing a petition pointing out the threat to their life by the petitioners, this writ petition is not maintainable. Further, for asserting their rights over the disputed property, the petitioners have to move the civil court and get appropriate orders in their favour. They can move for further orders from the civil court against the police to grant protection. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, we feel that the protection to their life cannot be granted. In fact, if protection is ordered to their life, the same may be misused to tilt the balance in the civil dispute. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. But, this judgment will not affect the powers of the police to act, if any cognizable offence is reported. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps