IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9697 of 2011(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR.R.DIVAKARAN , CHAKRAVARTHI, KANGATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,KOLLAM 691010 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTEND OF POLICE KOLLAM, KOLLAM 691 010. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST KOLLAM 690 13 4. PADMAKARAN, PADMAVARDHAN, KAIKULANGARA WARD, KOLLAM-13 5. D.SASIKUMAR, INJAKKAL VEEDU, PUNNATHALA ,KOLLAM 691 007. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JAIBY PAUL R4, R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.9697/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE CORPORATION DTD. 4.3.2011. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 8.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION SECRTARY, KOLLAM. P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 18.3.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9697 of 2011-J ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner against culpable, violent and illegal acts of respondents 4 and 5. 2. According to the petitioner, he has been permitted to put up a residential building in a property belonging to him. Ext.P1 is the permit. The Secretary of Kollam Corporation had issued Ext.P2 to confirm that the building can be put up in the property subject to the building permit. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner commenced work, respondents 4 and 5 are objecting to the work. This obstruction is illegal. In these circumstances, it is prayed that police protection may be ordered in favour of the petitioner. 3. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that there are disputes between the petitioner and the people of the locality regarding construction of the residential building in the property which might affect the W.P.(C) No.9697 of 2011 -: 2 :- conduct of the festival in the local temple. In the perception of the police, there is no threat to the life and property of the petitioner. 4. The precise reason on which respondents 4 and 5 and other local people raise objections to the construction is not revealed. It is vaguely suggested that the objection is on the ground that putting up of the building would offend the peaceful and orderly conduct of the festival in the local temple. It is not revealed to the Court as to what is the nature of right on the strength of which respondents 4 and 5 are objecting/obstructing the construction. 5. Respondents 4 and 5, though served, have not chosen to enter appearance. Indications suggest that the objection, if any, is not personal to respondents 4 and 5 and that objections are raised on behalf of proper conduct of the local temple festival. The temple or its Committee are not arrayed as parties. We are, in these circumstances, of the opinion that it may not be expedient to permit the petitioner to arm himself with a blanket order of police protection. If respondents 4 and 5 or any others are raising objections on the ground that conduct of the festival in the local temple would be interfered with by the construction, we are certainly of opinion that the petitioner must go to the civil W.P.(C) No.9697 of 2011 -: 3 :- court and seek appropriate directions. We are not persuaded to agree, notwithstanding the fact that respondents 4 and 5 have not chosen to appear in spite of service of notice, to arm the petitioner with any order of police protection. We apprehend that the order of police protection may be used against others who are raising objections for the constructions of the building for whatever reasons that they have to urge. It will be appropriate, we are satisfied, in these circumstances, to relegate the petitioner to the civil court and seek his remedy. We are not persuaded to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. 6. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge