IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36156 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MOHAN SANKAR AGED 55, S/O. VAIKKATTIL NARAYANAN, VADANAPPLLY AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., HOME DEPARTMENT GOVT. SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. 4. AYYAPPAN, S/O. PARACKAL KRISHNAN, ENGANDIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. 5. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. PARACKAL VELAPPAN, ENGANDIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. 6. SURENDRAN, S/O. CHERKARA THANDYAN VEETIL APPUKUTTAN, VADANAPPILLY AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK-680001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI FOR R4TO 6 SRI.R.SREEHARI FOR R4 TO 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36156 of 2010: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 300/04 DATED 20.3.2004 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA 1180/08 IN IA 1031/04 IN OS 300/04 DATED 21.6.2008 ON THE FILE OF the MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR DATED 4.4.09. EXT.P4.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLCIE, VADANAPPILLY DATED 19.11.2010. EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS TO EXT.P4 DATED 20.11.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4A.TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AND THE RULES AND REGULATION OF THE RESPONDENTS' SOCIETY. EXT.R4B.PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.19790/2010 DATED 30.6.2010. EXT.R4C.TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 894/03 OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.R4D.PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER PASSED IN TOP 281/2008 DATED 12.1.2009 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.R4E.PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS505/2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD DATED 29.9.2010. EXT.R4F.PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 22.1.2009 WITH PLAN. EXT.R4G.PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE OF INAGURATION OF EDATHAVALAM FOR SABARIMALA PILGRIMS. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.36156 of 2010-T ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to provide sufficient and appropriate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, his family members, against the threat raised by the 4 to 6 respondents and their henchmen, in the interest of justice. ii) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to take up Ext.P4 and to consider the same objectively, within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.300/2004 filed against respondents 4 to 6. The prayer in the suit was that the defendants should not trespass into the plaint schedule property or put up any improvement therein or pursuant to the festival their flag post should not be put up. Ext.P1 is the plaint. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the learned Munsiff. According to the petitioner there was violation of the order. WPC 36156/2010 -2- Petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint. There are other proceedings. It is stated that the petitioner lodged Ext.P4 complaint. There is threat to life and property. Hence, the writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 4 to 6. Therein, they have produced Ext.R4(b) which is the judgment in the writ petition filed by the party respondents challenging the order passed by the appellate court confirming the order of the learned Munsiff by which the learned Munsiff directed the removal of certain constructions in violation of interlocutory order. Ext.R4(c) is the copy of plaint. Ext.R4(d) is the copy of order passed by the District Court. The decree in O.S.No.505/2004 is Ext.R4 (e) and Ext.R4(f) and R4 (g) are the communication sent by the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board and the notice of inauguration. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the party respondents. There is no dispute that there is an order of status quo passed by the Munsiff Court after hearing both sides. An advocate commission was taken out at the time of institution of the suit wherein he took note of the state of construction. The suit related to Plaint- A and B schedule properties. The order of WPC 36156/2010 -3- status quo related to plaint A schedule. It is accordingly we notice that in Ext.R4(b) while the learned Judge confirmed the decision of the learned Munsiff directing removal of obstruction, he ordered that the constructions need be removed only from plaint A schedule property. As far as the order of status quo is concerned it relates to constructions made in plaint A schedule as is clear from Ext.R4(b). Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 would submit that respondents 4 to 6 will not act contrary to the order of status quo in relation to plaint A schedule. We record the said submission and close the writ petition. If any violation is brought to the notice of the police officer, he shall take action in accordance with law on the same. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS