IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35516 of 2010(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GEORGE, S/O.IMMANUEL, CHAMBAKKATTU HOUSE, CHERTHALA SOUTH MURI, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA - 688 524. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA - 688 524. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARTHUNGAL - 688 530. 6. TOMY A.J., S/O.JOSEPH, ELASSERIYIL, ARTHUNGAL P.O., CHERTHALA SOUTH - 688 524. 7. JAISON A.J., S/O.JOSEPH, ELASSERIYIL, ARTHUNGAL P.O., CHERTHALA SOUTH - 688 524. 8. GEORGE, S/O.ANDREW, KARIYIL HOUSE, CHERTHALA SOUTH MURI, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE - 688 524. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.PREMCHAND SMT.A.A.DILSHAH R7 BY SRI.BETSON P.KUNJAPPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO. 35516/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF IN OS NO.678/2007. P2 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT PREPARED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN OS NO. 678/2007. P3 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. P4 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R6(A) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT ALAPPUZHA. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35516 of 2010-L ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 5 to grant police protection to him as he apprehended danger at the hands of respondents 6 to 8. 2. There was a dispute between the petitioner and some others including the 8th respondent herein. That property dispute was resolved ultimately by Ext.P1 judgment. According to the petitioner, subsequent to Ext.P1 judgment, he had fenced his property and the property was bounded on all sides by firm boundaries. According to the petitioner, at the instance of the 6th respondent, a local Panchayat Member, respondents 6 to 8 have broken open a portion of the compound wall and are W.P.(C) No. 35516 of 2010 -: 2 :- attempting to assert a right of way through the property of the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends danger to his life also at the hands of respondents 6 to 8. In these circumstances, it is prayed that appropriate directions under Art.226 of the Constitution may be issued to respondents 1 to 5 to protect the life of the petitioner. 3. The 6th respondent has entered appearance. The 7th respondent has also entered appearance through counsel. There is no appearance for respondent No.8. 4. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that Ext.P1 is a collusive suit filed by the petitioner with the active connivance of the 8th respondent, the owner of the adjacent property. The real attempt was to deprive members of the public of a right of way which they were exercising from time immemorial. The 6th respondent or the 7th respondent or other members of the public were not parties to Ext.P1. That suit was not laid in representative capacity also. In these circumstances respondents 6, 7 or other members of the public in the locality, who allegedly are using the pathway, are not bound by Ext.P1 judgment. In the wake of obstruction by the petitioner, complaint was made before the police by the members of the public. The police have now submitted a report before the W.P.(C) No. 35516 of 2010 -: 3 :- Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate. Action is expected from the S.D.M. To preempt any such action on the part of the S.D.M./R.D.O. this petition has been filed by the petitioner to run away with an order of police protection so that the right of the local members of the public whose right of way has been obstructed by the petitioner can be effectively frustrated. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that no order of police protection may be granted. 5. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that there is absolutely no danger or threat to the person and life of the petitioner. There is only a dispute regarding a way. Under the guise of claiming an order for protection of person and life of the petitioner, the petitioner is only attempting to secure his proprietary interest to the detriment of the local public. It is undertaken that there shall be no threat whatsoever to the life of the petitioner. If there is any such threat, police may be directed to take appropriate action. Such a grievance is raised only to justify this petition for police protection. 6. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. It is true that there is a dispute as indicated W.P.(C) No. 35516 of 2010 -: 4 :- above. Police have submitted a report to the S.D.M. Action of the S.D.M. is expected. If there be any threat to the life or person of the petitioner, the police shall take necessary action. That undertaking may be recorded and the proceedings in this writ petition may be closed, submits the learned Government Pleader. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that about the alleged right of way through his property, he shall defend the proceedings which is contemplated or may choose to initiate civil proceedings. But however threat to his person may be abated. 8. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We do not in this petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution intend to express any opinion on the conflicting claims regarding the right of way through the petitioner's property. The parties can approach the appropriate fora to get that disputes resolved. 9. The short question that remains is whether there is any material to justify the perception of threat to the life and person of the petitioner. We take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the 6th respondent. We take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any threat against the person and life of the petitioner, necessary action W.P.(C) No. 35516 of 2010 -: 5 :- shall be taken by respondents 1 to 5. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no directions are necessary in this writ petition. 10. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed recording the submission of the 6th respondent that there shall be no threat to life and person of the petitioner and the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, that if there be any genuine complaints of threat to the person or life of the petitioner, the petitioner can bring it to the notice of the local police officials and the needful shall be done in the matter by the police. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(C) No. 35516 of 2010 -: 6 :-