IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5881 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHEELA GEORGE, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.SARAMMA GEORGE, ELAYARATHIL MEENATHETHIL, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P.OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CIRCLE INSPECTOR'S OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA, PIN-688 517. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, KURATHYAD, PIN-688 513. 4. SREEKUMAR, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, RADHA BHAVAN, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM MAVELIKKARA, PIN-688 517. 5. SASI KUMAR, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, RADHA BHAVAN, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, MAVELIKKARA, PIN-688 517. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.5881/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.NO.1313/2009 IN O.S.NO.222/09OFMAVELIKKARA MUNSIFF'S COURT. P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO 1ST AND 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.5881 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection for the petitioner against respondents 4 and 5 who are her neighbours. 2. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 are her neighbours. There are some civil disputes between them. Respondents 4 and 5 are brothers. Respondent No.4 has gone to a civil court and has obtained interim orders. The petitioner wants to contest the suit. She has filed a written statement. Her conduct of resisting the suit was not taken well by respondents 4 and 5. It is her grievance that because she is attempting to resist the suit filed by the fourth respondent, the fourth and fifth respondents are indulging in contumacious, culpable and violent conduct against the petitioner. It is in these circumstances prayed that wpc No.5881/2011 2 appropriate directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Respondents 4 and 5 have appeared before us through counsel. The learned counsel submits that respondents 4 and 5 have absolutely no objection against the petitioner raising all her contentions and contesting the suit filed by the fourth respondent. They have no intention to take law into their hands and they shall, as dutiful citizens abide by the orders of the civil court. The undertaking/submissions of respondents 4 and 5 may be recorded and this petition may be dismissed, submits the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that in the perception of respondents 2 and 3-police officials, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be given every opportunity to contest the suit. The police do not intend to intervene in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. If there be any culpable or objectionable conduct on the part of respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain and appropriate wpc No.5881/2011 3 action shall be taken by respondents 2 and 3, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We accept the submission of respondents 4 and 5. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We are satisfied in the circumstances of the case that no specific directions under Article 226 can need or deserve to be issued. 6. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above specific observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/