IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14972 of 2011(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI, CHIRAKKARA MURI, MARAVOOR MURI, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KIZHAKKEKALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.- 691 308 3. SARASWATHI AMMA, D/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, NANDANAM, MARAVOOR MURI, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN- 691 306 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.KANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts -2- WP(C)NO.14972/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 7/1/2011. P2 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND MAHAZAR NIL DATED. P3 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 11/5/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.14972 of 2011-V ***************************** Dated this the 10th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining of harassment by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, he is the owner in possession of a parcel of land. Because of interference by the 3rd respondent, he was obliged to approach the civil court. An order of injunction (copy produced as Ext.P1) has been passed by the Munsiff Court, Kollam in favour of the petitioner. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is unnecessarily interfering in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent is not entitled to do the same. Appropriate directions under Article 226 of the Constitution may be issued to prevent such abuse of power and consequent unnecessary vexation and harassment. This in short is the plea of the petitioner. 2. The 3rd respondent has entered appearance. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner has not placed all the details before this Court. It is true that an ad interim exparte order of injunction was passed, ie. Ext.P1, on 07.01.2011. Subsequently the 3rd respondent had appeared before court. The court had deputed a Commissioner W.P(C) No.14972 of 2011-V 2 to inspect the property. After getting the report of the Commissioner, the court had directed that status quo be maintained. Ext.P1 order stands modified to that extent, submits the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The attempt of the petitioner is to run away with an order so that he can make use of the same to harass and vex the 3rd respondent. In these circumstances, no directions are liable to be issued, submits the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 3. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that the police have no intention to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. As a matter of that, it was the petitioner who approached the police seeking assistance for enforcement of Ext.P1 order of the civil court. The police had made it clear to the petitioner that they shall not interfere in the civil dispute and it is for the parties to seek appropriate further directions from the court which passed Ext.P1 order as modified later. In these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader undertakes that the 2nd respondent shall not in any way interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. If no crime is committed and if there is no threat to the law and order W.P(C) No.14972 of 2011-V 3 situation, the police shall not interfere in the civil dispute, submits the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 4. We have adverted to all the relevant inputs. Unquestionably it is for the parties who has a grievance that Ext.P1 order which has been modified later is not being enforced, to approach the learned Munsiff and seek appropriate direction. This is not a case where the police has any role to perform if no crime is committed and the law and order situation is not threatened. 5. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the 2nd respondent shall not unnecessarily interfere in the civil dispute between the parties unless any crime is committed or the law and order situation is threatened. 6. Accepting these submissions of the learned Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/