IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16370 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ TOMY K.T., AGED 46, S/O,LATE THEYYA, KATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NARAKKAL. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NARAKKAL. 3. VICTOR, S/O.PAUL, THEKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE FOR R3 SRI.JOHN VIPIN FOR R3 SMT.S.A.SHERLY FOR R3 SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.2.2007 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NAYARAMBALAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE HOUSE TAX RECEIPT NO.68 DT.8.6.2007 ISSUED BY NAYARAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16370 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, is harassing him. He submits that he has constructed a compound wall separating his property and that of the 3rd respondent. It was constructed with the consent of the said respondent. But later, apparently on the 3rd respondent's motion, the 2nd respondent has sent a constable to the petitioner, who instructed him to demolish the compound wall and report compliance before the police station. Contending that, the police have no power or authority to interfere in a civil dispute, this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader upon instructions, submitted that the 3rd respondent filed a complaint before 2nd respondent. As part of enquiry into the complaint, petitioner was summoned to the police station . But he did not turn up. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which, it is submitted that the petitioner constructed the compound wall W.P.(C) No.16370/2008 2 encroaching into his property. Further, when the petitioner constructed a residential building in his property, he deposited waste materials in the 3rd respondent's compound. Notwithstanding, repeated requests they are not been removed by the petitioner. In the above background, he filed Ext.R3(a) petition before the police praying that the petitioner may be directed to vacate the encroachment and also to remove the waste deposited by him. 4. We heard learned counsel on both sides. The dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is a civil dispute and the forum for resolving the same is not the police station, but the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction in this matter. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that police have no intention to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. The writ petition is disposed of as above. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the grievance of the 3rd respondent against the petitioner. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps