IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13988 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHERIEF NAZIMUDEEN,SHA MANZIL, MANAKKAD.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PROPRIETOR, M/S SHERIEF N.SHERIEF,MERCHANT & FOREST CONTRACTOR THAMPANOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.PEETHAMBARAN SRI.PRASAD GANDHI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION,MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. FAIZAL MOHAMED,KALAPPURAKKAL VEEDU, PEZHAIKKAPPILLY,MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. NAVAS,KALAPPURAKKAL VEEDU, PEZHAIKKAPPILLY,MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.13988 of 2010-W ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks the following relief:-- “to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction to the Ist respondent to render adequate police protection to the petitioner, whenever there is demand from petitioner, to carry and ply his lorry with timber loads within the local limits of Muvattupuzha police station without any obstruction or threatening from respondents 2 and 3 and their men.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:- Petitioner is a timber merchant and proprietor of a timber depot at Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram district. He entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent to supply timber. He has supplied 23 lorry loads of timber to the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has not settled the accounts despite repeated requests for some reason or other. It is further contended that on 21.4.2010 respondents 2 and 3 and their men with ulterior motive for getting unlawful gain forcibly stopped the lorry of the WPC 13988/2010 -2- petitioner and taken away two lorry loads of timber worth Rs.2 lakhs. There is allegation of threat against the driver and cleaner. Petitioner filed complaint before the Ist respondent. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Apparently, there is an agreement entered into by the petitioner with the 2nd respondent. There is also a case that the 2nd respondent has not settled the accounts with the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of the allegations we feel that this is a case where the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to approach the competent Court. However, we make it clear that if the petitioner complains about the commission of any cognizable offence, action shall be take in accordance with law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS