IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17653 of 2008(B) -------------------------- .................... PETITIONER: ------------ PADMAKUMAR,S/O.SREEKANTAN NAIR PLOT NO.2 PTP NAGAR P.O. PTP NAGAR.,VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTION OF POLICE MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTION OF POLICE SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. PUSHKARAN,S/O.VASUDEVAN KALLUMPURATH VEEDU, KUNATHODU ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6. SUDHAN,S/O.KESAVAN, CONVENOR SASTHAMKONAM,E.M.S.NAGAR MANKOTTU POIKA ,ALLEGAD NJARAMOODU ROAD SAMITHI, RESIDING AT VILANADA VEEDU KUNNATHODU, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE. 7. C. DHARMARAJAN, S/O. CHAKRAPANI 'GOKULAM' T.C. 04/1795 ETTUKUZHY, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.17653 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the owner of 1 acre 10 cents of land comprised in re-survey No.105/01 of CheruvaKkal Village. By the side of that property, there is 15.46 acres of land owned by the Housing Society of U.S.Software Employees. In between these two properties, there is a small pathway which has been laid because of the generosity of the petitioner and the said Society, it is submitted. The said pathway is being used by respondents 5 to 7. Now they want to widen the pathway so that vehicles could be taken through that pathway. When attempts were made by the said respondents to demolish the compound wall of the petitioner and to commit mischief, the petitioner moved the civil court and the civil court passed Exhibit P6 interim order injuncting the 5th respondent and two others from destroying the boundaries of the petitioner's property or opening a new pathway through the plaint schedule property or committing mischief. W.P.(C)No.17653 OF 2008 -2- Later, respondents 5 and 6 herein have filed a suit before the Munsiff Court as O.S.No.1529/06 in which the petitioner herein is the 2nd defendant. In the said suit, Exhibit P9 interim order has been passed directing the parties to maintain status quo. 2. The petitioner submits in violation of those orders, respondents 5 to 7 are trespassing into the property and demolishing the boundary wall. So, he filed Exhibit P10 representation before the police seeking necessary protection to the petitioner's life and his property. It is pointed out by the petitioner that when he goes to the property, he is threatened by the party respondents. Alleging that the police did not take any action to protect him or his property, this writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioner is not residing in the above said property. Therefore, normally there is no occasion for threatening the petitioner. The alleged threat takes place only when he goes there and asserts his right concerning the boundary. If the petitioner has a grievance that the party respondents are violating the interim order of the civil court, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the civil court, the orders of which are violated and not to approach the police. The police have no power or authority to adjudicate whether an interim order in a civil suit W.P.(C)No.17653 OF 2008 -3- has been violated by a party to it and take remedial action. If such a power is conceded to the police, they can exercise that power in all pending civil matters and the resultant pandemonium that may ensue will be beyond one's comprehension. We notice that no statute confers any power on the police to consider whether the interim order of the civil court has been violated and take remedial action. For obvious reasons, they cannot be conceded that power or authority also. Therefore, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn