IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29625 of 2011(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. AYYAPPANKUTTY, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, PARAKKATTU KUNNINMEL HOUSE, THATHAMPULLY P.O., KULUKULLOOR VIA., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. MOHANDAS, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY, DO. DO. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI-679303, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. UDAYAVARMAN, S/O.RADHAKOVILAMMA, POOVATHINGAL, CHUNDAMPATTA AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679 309. 3. SIVADASAN, S/O.RADHAKOVILAMMA, POOVATHINGAL, CHUNDAMPATTA AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679 309. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. CYRIAC KURIAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.29625/2011-C: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 24/9/1988 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN IA.2945/2009 IN RSA.1281/2009 DATED 9/3/2010. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION DATED 7/12/2009 IN OS.188/2009 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PATTAMBI. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 2/2/2011 IN OS.22/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PATTAMBI. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 29625 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioners have approached this court complaining that at the instance of respondents 2 and 3, the first respondent - Circle Inspector of Police is harassing them without any justifiable reasons. 2. Sri.Cyriac Kurian, learned senior Government Pleader entering appearance on behalf of the first respondent submitted that accusations of harassment by the first respondent are without any basis. A person by name Chozhy, with whom the respondents 2 and 3 had entered into an agreement for cutting and removal of certain trees on her property, filed a complaint before the first respondent to the effect that the petitioners are illegally cutting and removing the trees. Attendance of the petitioners was necessitated only in connection with the enquiry into that complaint. Representatives of Cholly and respondents 2 and 3 were also summoned. The action of the first WPC.No.29625/2011 2 respondent cannot be branded as harassment. Since the enquiry into the complaint is over, the first respondent no longer requires the attendance of the petitioners, so submitted the learned Government Pleader. 3. Under the above circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition declining the specific directions sought of. But, we direct the first respondent and police officers under him to issue notice to the petitioners under Section 160 Cr.PC. if attendance of the petitioners is required in future in connection with the investigation of the case. We direct the petitioners as well as respondents 2 and 3 to have resolution of the dispute regarding the cutting and removal of trees through process of a competent Civil Court. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk WPC.No.29625/2011 3