IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3660 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MRIDULA DEVI MANIKANTA VILASAM, DEVANCODE, MYLAKKARA PO, KALLIKKAD, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. APPU NADAR, S/O.RAMU NADAR NETTARATHALACKAL HOUSE,MYLAKKARA KALLIKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 572. 5. BHUVANACHANDRAN, (CHINA MANIYAN) NELLIMOOTTIL HOUSE, DEVANCODE, MYLAKKARA KALLIKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 572. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA. R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3660 of 2010(F) APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1..TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P2..TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.1.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4A..TRUE COPY OF THE MC 240/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST HER SON AND SON IN LAW. EXT.R4B..TRUE COPY OF THE CMP FILED ON 5.12.2009 IN MC 240/2009 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.3660 of 2010-F ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks adequate and meaningful protection to the petitioner and any willing worker to tap the rubber trees in the petitioner's property. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:--Petitioner is a widow. Petitioner has planted rubber trees in her property. She is not interested to do slaughter tapping in her property. It s stated that respondents 4 and 5 insisted the petitioner to agree for slaughter tapping. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 are taking advantage of her helplessness and they are threatening her and her workers. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the 3rd respondent. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. It is inter alia stated in the counter affidavit that the respondents had never restrained anybody WPC No.3660/2010 -2- from tapping the trees in the petitioner's property. There are various other allegations. 3. Having regard to the limited nature of the issue which is before us, we need not go into the other aspects. Of course, the 4th respondent has a case that he used to tap the trees in the petitioner's property. It is stated that the petitioner owes Rs.8,000/- to him on that account and that the petitioner created a false case when the amount is demanded. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that the approach made by the petitioner in Article 226 may not be justified having regard to the case set up by her which according to the respondents is false. He would submit that the petitioner may not be entitled to the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. The question involved is whether the petitioner is entitled to tap rubber trees in the property with willing workers against the obstruction from respondents 4 and 5. WPC No.3660/2010 -3- The respondents themselves have stated that they never obstructed anybody from tapping the trees in the petitioner's property. In such circumstances, recording the statement respondents 4 and 5 the writ petition is disposed of. In case there is any obstruction from respondents 4 and 5 against tapping of the rubber trees in the petitioner's property with the help of any willing worker, respondents 2 and 3 will provide adequate and effective protection to the petitioner for doing the work. We make it clear that we have not pronounced about the claims of the 4th respondent against the petitioner and it is open to the 4th respondent to pursue the claim before appropriate forum. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS