IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3501 of 2011(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BALACHANDRAN, S/O.VISWANATHAN ACHARY, AGED 46 YEARS, MOOLAVILA PADEETTATHIL, KURUMANDAL CHERIYIL, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.ANIL (K/1480/98) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM-691301. 3. RAJI, W/O.VIKRAMAN PILLAI, 'ASHA NIVAS', POOTHAKULAM CHERIYIL, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691302. 4. VENU, S/O.KOCHU GOVINDA PILLAI, 'ASHA NIVAS', POOTHAKULAM CHERIYIL, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691302. 5. SUKESHAN, PARVATHY SADANAM, 'ASHA NIVAS', POOTHAKULAM CHERIYIL, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691302. 6. RATHISH K.NAIR, ASHA NIVAS, POOTHAKULAM CHERIYIL, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691302. 7. SUCHANDRAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN PILLAI, PANAYIL VEEDU, POOTHAKULAM CHERIYIL, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691302. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISHMA R3 TO R7 BY: ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SM R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:3501 OF 2011 K ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to him. According to him he is a tenant of a shop room under the husband of the third respondent. As there were unjustified and illegal attempts to physically throw the petitioner out of possession he filed a suit for claiming a decree of injunction. Contrary to the terms and mandate of interim injunction the shop room was locked by the third respondent in collusion with the other party respondents. There was allegedly an ornamental door which had to be installed in a temple inside the shop room of the petitioner and the petitioner wanted to remove the said ornamental door from the shop room. He came to this Court in these circumstances with this petition. A Bench which dealt with the matter on 4-2-2011 issued directions to the Superintendent of Police to perform certain specific acts. The Superintendent of Police that is the first respondent has complied with those WPC 3501/2011 2 directions and has filed a report before Court. Petitioner is satisfied with the report. He does not seek any further directions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner had moved the court which passed the interim order. Prayers were made to take action against the respondents for violation of the order of injunction. Police protection for enforcement of the order of injunction was also prayed. Those prayers have already been allowed now after the filing of this writ petition. 2. In short the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no further directions are necessary in this petition in the light of the orders passed by the Civil Court. In these circumstances this petition may now be dismissed as unnecessary submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Respondents 3 to 7 have no objection to that course suggested by the counsel for the petitioner. However, respondents 3 to 7 want it to be noted by this Court that the case of respondents 3 to 7 is that the petitioner was never in possession of the said shop room. It is not necessary for us to go into that controversy in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is in these WPC 3501/2011 3 circumstances dismissed as requested by the counsel for the petitioner. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 3501/2011 4