IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH APRIL 2010 / 30TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 13338 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.V.MURUGAN,S/O.VELLAPANDI NADAR, AGED 42 YEARS,MANOJ BHAVAN,KARAPPUZHA KARA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY,KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY,KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION,KOTTAYAM. 3. SANUJAN,S/O.KOCHAYYAR,AGED ABOUT 60 YRS, NEDIYAKALATHIL(SANJU NIVAS)HOUSE,NO.KMC 244/78, THEKKUMGOPURAM,KOTTAYAM VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM. 4. RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.CHELLAPPAN,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,POOTHARA HOUSE,NO.KMC 23/434,KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R1 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ================== W.P.(C).No.13338 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 20th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T RAVINDRAN, J.: The main prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, to afford police protection to the petitioner and his workers for reconstructing the compound wall in the property of the petitioner, based on Exts.P1 and P2 without any threat or obstruction from respondents 3 and 4. 2. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner has already filed a suit, O.S.No.149/2010, before the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, for the relief of injunction restraining respondents 3 and 4 from interfering with the proprietary rights of the petitioner. We are of opinion that, in the light of the principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Reena v. Geena [2010 (2) KLT 155 (F.B)], the petitioner cannot simultaneously move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the intervention of this Court in order to construct a compound wall. Further, this Court has, in Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala [2008 (1) KLT 901], held that police protection cannot be granted to construct a compound wall. It was held that the Police have no duty or power to decide which is the correct boundary and therefore, this Court cannot direct the Police to grant protection to put up a compound wall. Therefore, on merits also, the petitioner cannot seek or be granted police protection in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy of the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by any act of respondents 3 and 4, is to seek interim order in the suit which he has already instituted. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/- sdk+ P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge