IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20588 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.NATARAJAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'NISHALAYAM', VENPALAVATTOM, KADAKAMPALLI VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 029. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SMT.A.V.PRIYA SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. THE CITY CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 3. THE SECRETARY, CITY CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 4. THE MAYOR, CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 5. THE WARD COUNCILLOR, KARIKAKAM WARD, KARIKAKAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-07. W.P.(C).NO.20588 OF 2010 W 6. ORUVATHILKOTTA SREE DURGA BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE TRUST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 29. 7. THE PRESIDENT, ORUVATHILKOTTA SREE DURGA BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE TRUST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-29. 8. D.KOMALAKUMAR, PATRON, ORUVATHILKOTTA SREE DURGA BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE TRUST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-29. 9. K.VIDYADHARAN, PATRON, ORUVATHILKOTTA SREE DURGA BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE TRUST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-29. 10. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 11. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PETTAH POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 12. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PETTAH POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-24. R1 & R10 TO R12 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. R2 TO R4 BY ADVOCATE SHRI P.K. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 20588 OF 2010 W --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd July, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 10 to 12 to afford sufficient police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members against the threat from respondents 4 to 9. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 2 to 5 not to lay any road in the property of the petitioner without resorting to proceedings for acquisition.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 22 ½ cents of property comprised in Survey Nos.1881/1 and 1881/3 of Katakampalli Village was obtained by the petitioner and 2 ½ cents of property in the said survey was obtained by the petitioner's wife and they are in absolute WPC.20588/2010 W 2 possession and enjoyment of the same. In Survey No.1880, on the eastern most portion of the property of the petitioner, is the Oruvathilkotta Sree Durga Bhagavathy Temple. The Temple is maintained by the sixth respondent Trust. In the year 2003, the sixth respondent had requested the petitioner to permit the devotees to have a right of way through the property of the petitioner so as to enable the devotees to reach the Temple as an easy means of way. Petitioner, sixth respondent represented by its then President, and the Councillor of the Ward entered into an agreement whereby the petitioner has permitted the devotees of the aforesaid Temple to use the pathway having a width of five links. On 23.06.2010, when the petitioner visited the property, it was noticed that the eastern most portion of the property belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.1881/3, there were attempts to widen the pathway into a road by annexing about two metres of property from the petitioner's property. Allegations are made against the second respondent Corporation. There are allegations against the sixth responsdent WPC.20588/2010 W 3 also, including the allegation that the members of the sixth respondent threatened the petitioner that they will kill the petitioner and his family members in the event of the petitioner attempting to come to the property. Petitioner filed a detailed representation. 3. We heard Shri R.S. Kalkura, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. As far as the first prayer is concerned, we notice that the matter arises from what could be termed as civil dispute and it is more appropriate that the petitioner approaches the competent civil court. We also bear in mind the principles laid down by this Court in Suseela v. State of Kerala (2008 (4) KLT 561). However, we direct that if the petitioner has complained or complains of commission of any cognizable offence by the party respondents before respondents 11 and 12, action in accordance with law shall be taken on the same by them. WPC.20588/2010 W 4 5. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 in answer to the allegations made against them by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that respondents 2 to 4 will not do anything which is illegal. We record the same. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge