IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3602 of 2011(A) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- P.R.SYAMALA, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O.PANKAJAKSHY, MANALIMELE PUTHEN VEEDU, KILIKKOTTUKONAM, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O. MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695 001. 2. CIRCLE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695 001. 3. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695 001. 4. S.R.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, POOJA KILIKKOTTUKONAM, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O. MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP SMT.N.G.SINDHU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 3602 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 10.5.1999 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 8.6.2005 EXECUTED BY MR. SASI IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRELIMINARY JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2005 IN O.S.NO.731/2004 OF 2ND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO. 731/2004 OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P6 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO. 731/2004 OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 67/2009 IN RSA NO. 43/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P8 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.3602 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner, a woman aged 62 years, has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection to her against the apprehended illegal, contumacious and culpable conduct of respondent No.4 who is none other than her own son. 2. Between the parties, there are civil disputes. The parties are already before the Civil Court. The dispute between them has also reached this Court and is pending as RSA No.43 of 2009. Ext.P7 interim order has been passed by the Bench concerned under which an order of stay was granted making it clear that the petitioner herein shall not be dispossessed from a specified plot until further orders. The fourth respondent is the appellant in that RSA. 3. What is the grievance of the petitioner? According to the petitioner, notwithstanding Ext.P7 order she has WPC No.3602/2011 2 been forcibly dispossessed in violation of Ext.P7 order. Did the petitioner complain to the Court concerned? Did the petitioner seek any orders from that Court? Admittedly, no steps have been taken. During the pendency of the said RSA, directions of police protection are now sought in this writ petition. 4. We are not in the least impressed by the prayer made by the petitioner. The petitioner, if she has a grievance that Ext.P7 has been violated should certainly have complained to the Court which had passed Ext.P7 order. Without and before doing that, we find no merit in the attempt to secure directions for police protection. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at any rate protection may be afforded to the life of the petitioner, there is nothing to perceive any threat to the life of the petitioner from the fourth respondent, though it is evident that there is a civil dispute between them. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 3 submits that except the dispute about the alleged dispossession in violation of Ext.P7 order, the police do not perceive any threat to the WPC No.3602/2011 3 life or person of the petitioner. If there be any threat, the learned Government Pleader undertakes on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 that adequate and necessary action shall be taken. But, about the complaint of dispossession, the petitioner shall have to move the civil court concerned, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We are satisfied that no directions need be issued by us invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner who has not complained to the court concerned about the alleged violation of Ext.P7 order. We do not perceive any threat to the life of the petitioner. We are satisfied that the submissions/undertaking of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 are adequate in the given circumstances. No further specific directions are necessary, we are satisfied. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays that the relationship between the petitioner and the fourth respondent being what it is, the parties may be referred for mediation. As the parties are already before this Court in RSA No.43 of 2009, the parties can request the WPC No.3602/2011 4 court concerned to make a reference for mediation in the said RSA. We do not perceive the need to make any such reference in this writ petition. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/