IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19478 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): AKHILA BHARATHA AYYAPPA SEVA SANGHAM, BRANCH NO.344, PANDALAM, REP.BY PRESIDENT, K.NARAYANA KURUP, S/O.LATE S.KESAVAN NAIR, 'REMA NIVAS', THONNALLUR, PANDALAM, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR), ADV.C.B.SREEKUMAR & ADV. SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM. 4. S.I.OF POLICE, PANDALAM. 5. K.G.RATNA BAI, 'LAKSHMI NIVAS',KURUMPALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHAMANTHITTA DIST. 6. R.BALACHANDRAN PILLAI, KAVERIYIL, THONNALLUR, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA. 7. R.MADHU, KARINGODATHU HOUSE, THONNALLUR, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. ADV. SHRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR), ADV.SHRI. P.Y.AHAMMED PHYSI ADV.SMT.K.REENA ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) FOR R7 GP MR.P A SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 19478/09 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.6.4.2009 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADOOR IN IA NO.708/09 IN OS 144/09 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DT.25.5.2009 REGD BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.708/09 IN OS 144/09 OF MUNSIFF COURT ADOOR DT.30.5.2009 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SANGHAM BEFORE R4 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.27.6.2009 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRSENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE HON.MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS DT.1.7.2009 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.3.7.2009 BEFORE R2 TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.19478 OF 2009-D -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 23rd July 2009 Judgment BHAVADASAN, J. This is a petition, seeking police protection against respondents 5 to 7. 2. The petitioner claims to be the President of Akhila Bharatha Ayyappa Seva Sanghom, which has taken 24 Ares of land in RS No.614/9A and 614/9B of Pandalam village, from the 5th respondent. The property was taken on ground rent in 1964. Since then, the Sanghom is in possession of the property. It is submitted that during the sabarimala season, the devotees use the place for taking rest. The office of the Sanghom is also functioning in the said plot. The rent paid is Rs.300/- per month for the office building and Rs.50,000/- per annum as ground rent for the land. When respondents 5 and 6 with the help of the 7th respondent, tried to trespass into the above said property, a suit was instituted as OS No.144/09. An ex parte interim injunction was initially granted and thereafter, after hearing both WPC 19478/09 2 sides, as per Ext.P3, the interim injunction was made absolute. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the interim injunction granted by the court below, the party respondents are trying to obstruct the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the Sanghom. It is also alleged that the said respondents are trying to forcibly dismantle the building situated in the plot. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, denying the allegations in the Writ Petition. It is pointed out that they have not taken law into their own hands. They also say that the above property was given to the petitioner under a licence and not under any lease agreement. 4. Whatever it may be, the petitioner has filed complaints before the police. In the light of the fact that the interim injunction has been obtained by the petitioner from the court below, it is only appropriate that law and order is maintained in the locality. 5. Therefore, this Petition is allowed and in the circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to give adequate protection to the WPC 19478/09 3 petitioner so as to enforce the order of injunction granted by the court below, so long as it is in force. It is also directed that under the guise of this order, the petitioner will not be entitled to make any additional construction in the property except doing repair works to the existing structure. 6. It was then pointed out that a CMA filed by the respondents and a suit on the issue involved in the proceedings are yet to be determined finally. 7. Therefore, the suit as well as the CMA pending, shall be disposed of untrammelled by the observations contained in this judgment. The 7th respondent pointed out that he is unnecessarily impleaded and no order is sought against him. The said submission is recorded. Whether the 7th respondent is an unnecessary party, need not be decided now. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE WPC 19478/09 4 sta WPC 19478/09 5