IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23093 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSE, AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF IYPE, OLANGATTU HOUSE, MORAKALA, KUMARAPURAM PO-683 565, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU CIRCLE, PATTIMATTOM-683 562. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, PATTIMATTOM-683 562. 4. OMANA, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, CHEMANAKUDI, CHOORAKODE, PATTIMATTOM-683 562. 5. PRABHA NARAYANI, W/O.NARAYANI, CHEMANAKUDI, CHOORAKODE, PATTIMATTOM-683 562. BY ADV.SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C).No. 23093 of 2011(J) APPENDIX EXHIBITS FOR THE PETITIONER : Ext.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.3.2011 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR IN I.A.NO.689 OF 2011 IN O.S.NO.86 OF 2011 Ext.P2 : TRUE COMPLAINT DATED 16.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 1st RESPONDENT Ext.P3 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.2691/SDD/11 DATED 16.8.2011 EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENTS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23093 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. Eventhough the party respondents were served with notice by special messenger, they have not entered appearance to resist the averments in the writ petition. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of instructions received pursuant to order dated 25.8.2011 passed by us, submitted that, the parties were summoned on the basis of Ext.P2 and the party respondents assured the police that they have no intention to cause any obstruction to the tapping activities of the petitioner. They also told the police that they are having some civil dispute over the property with the petitioner and for getting redressal to such dispute they are thinking in terms of approaching the civil court. The averments in the writ petition stands established by non-traverse. The stand taken by the party 2 W.P.(C) No.23093 of 2011 respondents before the police is that, they have no intention to obstruct the tapping activities of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, we feel that relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and direct respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner's life and to his rubber estate situated in Pattimattom village, Kunnathunadu Taluk and to his usufructs from the rubber estate and from conducting agricultural operations in the said estate, free of all obstruction by the party respondents. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/