IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 14754 of 2010(T) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- E.SAINUDDIN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.C.ISMAIL PILLAI, PUTHOOR KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, VENJARAMMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMMOODU. 3. SUDHEER, S/O.ZAINABA BEEVI, PUTHOOR KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, VENJARAMMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. NAZER, S/O.AYISHA BEEVI, PUTHOOR KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, VENJARAMMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN R3 & 4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.S.VIJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO.14754/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND PLAN DATED 28/09/2001 FILED BEFORETHE MUNSIFF COURT, MEDUMANGAD IN O.S. NO.587/1984. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 02/02/2010 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLDGEMENT CARD DATED 10/02/2010. P4: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10/04/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/04/2010 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF LETTER NO.5001/2010 DATED 20/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NELLANAD. P7: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT E NO.1121334 DATED 28/01/2010. P8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A6-7714/2010 DATED 24/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, NELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P9: COPY OF LETTER NO.C1/11181/2010 DATED 31/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE POLICE. P10: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/02/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE. P11: COPY OF THE OP.TICKET NO.067537 DATED 14/02/2011 OF THE GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P12: COPY OF THE REPORT APPEARED IN MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED 15/02/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(a):COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12/05/2010 SUBMITTED BY SAINABA BEEVI BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 14754 of 2010-T ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are related to each other. The petitioner is a retired College Professor. According to him, he wants to construct a boundary wall for the property which has been allotted to him in partition. Respondents 3 and 4 are raising objections to the same. They are indulging in wanton, culpable and violent acts against the petitioner. In these circumstances, with these allegations, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 and 2 under Art.226 of the Constitution to afford protection against respondents 3 and 4. 2. Respondents 3 and 4 have appeared before this Court. According to them, they have no intention of assaulting or causing any threat to the life or person of the petitioner. But the petitioner is indulging in illegal conduct. He is trying to construct a compound wall in his property obstructing a pathway that has been in existence through the property. They are W.P.(C) No. 14754 of 2010 -: 2 :- raising objections against such conduct. That legitimate objection is being mis-described as threat to the life and person of the petitioner. No interim orders are liable to be issued. Except to obstruct the illegal construction of the wall, the respondents have no intention to do anything to the petitioner. No directions under Art.226 of the Constitution are, in these circumstances, necessary. Petition may be dismissed, it is prayed. 3. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from the police officials, submits that in the perception of the police officials also there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. There is a dispute which is purely a civil dispute between the parties. Parties have been advised to go to the civil court and get their disputes resolved. If there is any threat against the life of the petitioner from respondents 3 and 4 or any other, necessary action shall be taken by the police. It is duty of the police to take such action and no specific directions under Art.226 of the Constitution are necessary, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. We have anxiously considered all the relevant inputs. We are not persuaded to issue any direction under Art.226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after W.P.(C) No. 14754 of 2010 -: 3 :- discussions at the Bar, fairly accepts that the petitioner shall go to the civil court and seek the orders of the civil court against the allegedly improper obstruction to the construction of the compound wall. We do not perceive any threat to the life of the petitioner. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge