IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 19506 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOHN @ JOHNSON, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT BETHEL HOUSE, THAIPARAMBU, KANAKODU, VELLARADA DESOM, VELLARADA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA POLICE STATION. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA POLICE STATION. 4. T.L. RAJ, S/O.THANKARAJ, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, APPUKKONAM, KOOTHALIL, VELLARADA VILLAGE, PIN-695 121. 5. ARAVIND, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, BHARATHIVILASOM BANGLOW, VELLARADA DESOM, VELLARADA, PIN-695 121. 6. NALINAN, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, MUTTACHAL POTTUVILAKAM HOUSE, VELLARADA VILLAGE, PIN-695 121. 7. K. BABY, NELLISSERRY NITHIN NIVAS, VELLARADA DESOM, VELLARADA VILLAGE, PIN-695 121. WP(C).No. 19506 of 2010(K) 8. ARJUNAN, S/O.LEKSHMANAN NADAR, MEKKUMKARA PUTHANVEEDU, KANAKKODU, VELLARADA VILLAGE, PIN-695 121. 9. RAJU, S/O.ERAMYAN, VADAKKUMKARA VEEDU, KANAKKODU, VELLARADA VILLAGE, PIN-695 121. 10. JAPAMANI, S/O.ERAMYAN, VADAKKUMKARA VEEDU, KANAKKODU, VELLARADA VILLAGE, PIN-695 121. * ADDL. R11 IMPLEADED ADDL. R11: VELLARADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAMOOD P.O., VELLARADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 505, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY. * IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/03/2011 IN I.A. NO.4767/2011. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.R. SABU. R4 TO R10 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER. ADDL. R11 BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19506 of 2010(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/10/2009 IN I.A. NO.5606/2008 INO.S. NO.882/2008 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.265/2008 DATED 09/10/2008 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.284/2009 DATED 04/09/2009 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.417/2009 DATED 18/12/2009 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.221/2010 DATED 21/04/2010 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01/06/2010. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01/06/2010. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE FIR NO.492/2010. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 31/10/2001. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/11/2001 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 17/01/2006. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/12/2001 IN WP(C) NO. 36511/2001. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION IN ABOVE CIVIL SUIT NO. OS.882/2008. EXT.R4(b): COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY VELLARADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.R4(c): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF VELLARADA PANCHAYATH INTIMATING VELLARADA CIRCLE INSPECTOR AGAINST PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.19506 of 2010-K ***************************** Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking protection for his life and property. He prays that appropriate directions may be issued to respondents 1 to 3 police officials under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The crux of the grievance of the petitioner is that respondents acting in collusion have closed down a public panchayat pathway. This has been done by respondents 4 to 7 in an attempt to ensure that property held by the 8th respondent remains in one block without any pathway running through his property. To implement this malafide scheme, he has tried to make it appear that there is a pathway through the property of the petitioner. Respondents 4 to 10 are virtually attempting to shift the existing pathway vested in the panchayat to a different location through the property of the petitioner. This in short is the grievance of the petitioner. The 8th respondent, it is pointed out, had come to this Court earlier and Ext.P12 judgment was passed directing the police to afford protection to the 8th W.P(C) No.19506 of 2010-K 2 respondent on condition that the use of the pathway shall not be obstructed. The petitioner has already approached the civil court and O.S.No.882 of 2008 is pending before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 8th respondent and his henchmen are indulging in the illegal conduct of obstructing the panchayat pathway and to cover up that illegal conduct of theirs, they are attempting to cut a pathway through the property of the petitioner. 3. Respondents 4 to 10 have entered appearance. The allegations raised by the petitioner are denied. This Court directed impleadment of the 11th respondent, ie. the Local Grama Panchayat. No statement has been filed by the panchayat. It is submitted that the counsel has filed a statement after taking instructions from the panchayat. The counsel takes the stand that there has been illegal obstruction of the panchayat pathway and action deserves to be taken against the 8th respondent for such illegal action on the part of the 8th respondent. 4. This petition is for police protection. There are disputes between the parties about the alleged obstruction to a public pathway by the 8th respondent. According to the 8th respondent, he has not obstructed any such pathway. According W.P(C) No.19506 of 2010-K 3 to him, the boot is on the other leg and it is the petitioner who is attempting to obstruct the pathway. 5. The complex factual dispute between the parties about the alleged obstruction of the pathway and the attempt to make a pathway through the property of the petitioner cannot obviously be decided by this Court invoking and exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover we find that the parties are already before the civil court and the civil court is seized off the matter. The learned counsel for the 11th respondent grama panchayat submits that the grama panchayat intends to initiate action against the 8th respondent for illegal obstruction of the pathway. Because of the political clout of respondents 4 to 10, such action has not been taken so far. 6. We find it difficult and unnecessary to express any final opinion on merits about the acceptability of the rival contentions. Suffice it to say that we feel that no direction under Article 226 of the Constitution deserves to be issued by this Court. The dispute between the parties about the alleged obstruction of the public pathway - whether by the petitioner or by the 8th respondent, and the alleged illegal act of respondents W.P(C) No.19506 of 2010-K 4 4 to 10 to cut open a new pathway through the property of the petitioner herein, certainly deserves to be resolved by the regular civil courts established by law. If the 11th respondent has any objection against the obstruction of the public pathway, they can also initiate necessary action in accordance with law. 7. The petitioner has also raised a dispute about the threat to his life and person. That threat evidently arises from the dispute regarding the property. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 10 categorically undertakes that they shall not indulge in any conduct threatening the life or person of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 undertakes that if there be any such threat to the life or person of the petitioner, necessary action shall be taken by the police in accordance with law. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no specific directions regarding the protection of the life of the petitioner need be issued. We accept the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 on that aspect. 8. With the observation that the parties may get their disputes settled in accordance with law by initiating appropriate proceedings or by getting appropriate directions in the pending W.P(C) No.19506 of 2010-K 5 suit, we dismiss this petition. We make it clear that we have not intended to express any opinion on the acceptability of the rival contentions. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/