IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30362 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. V.SETHUNATH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.S.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, PUTHENMADOM, RANNI - PERUNAD P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. K.RADHAMONI, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.LATE P.S.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, PUTHENMADOM, RANNI - PERUNAD P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE PADINAJREKKARA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DY.S.P OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. 3. P.S.MOHANAN, TALUK SECRETARY, CPI (M), RESIDING AT PARACKAL HOUSE, MADATHUMOOZHY, RANNI - PERINAD P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 4. SHYNU, SHYNU BHAVANAM, MADAMON, RANNI - PERINAD, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 5. HARIDAS, DISTRICT COMMITTEE MEMBER C.P.I(M), RESIDING AT SWANTHANAM, MADAMON, RANNI - PERINAD P.O., RANNI TALUK. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUNAD. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1, R2 & R6 ADV.SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY FOR R3 & 4 SRI.T.P.PRADEEP FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.30362/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN AND PERMIT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30.7.08. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE PERUNAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DATED 19.4.02. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DATED 17.8.07 IN W.P.(C)No. 18783/07. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 27.8.08. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 27.8.08. EXT.P7: FIR AND COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE JFMC, RANNI DATED 30.8.08. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO.W.B.32/08 DATED 29.8.08 RECEIVED ON 1.9.08. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION AND INTERIM ORDER OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C)No. 27058/08. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS DATED 20.8.08. EXT.P11: DEFAMATION COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AS CMP.NO.2333/08 DATED 26.9.08. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PERUNAD PANCHAYAT DATED 9.7.07. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.30362 OF 2008 M ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The first petitioner is a practising lawyer. The second petitioner is his mother. They have approached this Court praying for a direction to the police officers to protect the lives of the petitioners and that of their family members in the background of the alleged threat to their lives from respondents 3 to 5. They also seek similar directions to protect their property. The petitioners constructed a compound wall on the strength of the building permit issued by the Panchayat. Later, for political reasons, the Panchayat stayed the operation of the building permit on 29.8.2008. By about 9.35 PM on the said date, respondents 3 to 5 and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and demolished the compound wall. Though police was moved immediately, no crime was registered against the culprits. So, the petitioners moved the Magistrate's Court under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Only when the complaint was forwarded by the Court, the police registered the crime. Exhibit P7 is the FIR in that crime. W.P.(C)No. 30362/08 -2- 2. The 2nd petitioner moved this Court challenging the Panchayat's order and it is submitted that this Court has stayed it as per Exhibit P9(9) dated 5.9.2008. Infuriated by that, the petitioners submit, the 3rd respondent herein, who is the office bearer of the CPI(M) filed a case against them before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court for the alleged commission of the offences of defamation. It is also submitted, on 13.10.2008 they have held a public meeting in which threatening speeches were made against the petitioners. The petitioners submit, the party respondents herein are threatening them with dire consequences if they do not withdraw the cases filed against them and the Panchayat. Their lives are under threat. Therefore, the second petitioner has as early as on 28.8.2008, preferred Exhibit P10 representation before the District Superintendent of Police, seeking police protection to their lives and also for their property. Alleging that the police did not take any effective action, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations against them. They say they have not threatened the petitioners. They also submit that they have no intention whatsoever to harass them. 4. The 5th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations against him. The 5th respondent also submitted W.P.(C)No. 30362/08 -3- that he has no intention whatsoever to physically harm the petitioners. 5. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit and they produced Exhibit P11 complaint filed by the 3rd respondent alleging defamation against them. They also produced Exhibit P12 letter written by the former Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to the Deputy Director concerning the harassment from the part of the political parties against one Kamala, Sheela Bhavan, Mandhappuzha. The same is being repeated in the case of the petitioners also, it is submitted. 6. The petitioners seek police protection for the construction of their compound wall and/or for protection of the same. They also seek protection to their lives. 7. Even assuming that the petitioners have a valid building permit, no police protection can be ordered for the construction of the compound wall, in view of the decisions of this Court in Devadasan v. State of Kerala 2005(3) KLT 739 and Ajaya Kumar v. State of Kerala (2008(1)KLT 901. If this Court orders police protection, the petitioners may construct the compound wall on forbidden lines and the persons who are aggrieved by the alleged encroachment of the petitioners will be left without any remedy. So, the petitioners can move the civil court and get appropriate orders. The alleged threat to their lives is mainly in connection with the construction of the compound wall W.P.(C)No. 30362/08 -4- only. We have already noted the submissions of the party respondents that they have no intention whatsoever to physically harm the petitioners. But, if there is any threat to the personal safety of the petitioners, they may bring it to the notice of the 6th respondent. In that event, the 6th respondent shall look into the same and if the complaint is found genuine, shall take appropriate action in accordance with law, as the occasion demands to protect their lives. But this protection shall not be used by the petitioners for the construction of the compound wall. The police shall not extend any protection to them, if on the strength of this order, they are trying to construct the compound wall. For that they have to move the competent civil court. Needless to say the police shall render protection to construct the compound wall, if so directed by the civil court. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn