IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 19296 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MUJEEB REHMAN, S/O. KOMUKUTTY, AGED 39, RESIDING AT THACHURUPADICKAL THAZHATH, KANNAMANGALAM P.O., THIRURANGADI-676 318. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHORNUR, PIN-679 121. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM, PIN-679 101. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM, PIN-679 101. 4. DASAN, S/O. NARAYANAN EZHUTHACHAN, KOZHICHUTTAIL HOUSE, MULANJUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679 511. 5. SUBRAMANIYAN @ MANI, CHAKRAYATHIL HOUSE, MULANJUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679 511. 6. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O. RAMANKUTTY NAIR, CHERUGAPADATH, MULANJUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679 511. 7. HARI NARAYANAN, S/O. NARAYANAN EZHUTHACHAN, KOZHICHUTTAIL HOUSE, MULANJUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679 511. ADDL.R8: THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PALAKKAD. ADDL. R9: THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPPALAM. ADDL.R10: THE SECRETARY, LAKKIDI-PERUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULANJUR P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/08/2011. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R6 SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR FOR R6 SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R4TOR7 SRI.P.JAYARAM FOR ADDL.R10 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD FOR R1-3,9 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX TO W.P.C. NO.19296 OF 2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.4002/2007 DATED 6-10-07. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2339/2008 DATED 12/5/08 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.4492/2007 DATED 19/11/2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 23/7/2009 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 19/8/09 FROM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY BUILDING PERMIT DATED 28/5/2010 ISSUED BY LOCAL AUTHORITY, LAKKIDI-PERUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 21/5/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1083/11 IN O.S.NO.226/11 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPPALAM. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT AND SKETCH FILED BY COMMISSIONER. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 23/6/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. 6TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R6(a): TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 4.6.2011 IN O.S.NO.226/2011 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPALAM. EXT.R6(b): TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 330/2011 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION. EXT.R6(C): TRUE COPY OF NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 05/06/2011. 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.226/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPALAM. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.330/2011 OF THE OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION. 9TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R9(a): TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH DATED 20/09/2011. // True Copy// PA to Judge R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.19296 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner against illegal obstruction raised by respondents 4 to 7 against the establishment of an industrial unit in property purchased by the petitioner under Exts.P1 to P3. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner in possession of property covered by Exts.P1 to P3. He has obtained the requisite permission/licence etc. to establish an industrial unit in that property. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondents 4 to 7, influential local persons, are illegally obstructing the work of establishing such industrial unit. The petitioner laments that respondents 4 to 7 are demanding that work must be given in such industrial unit to persons at the dictation of respondents 4 to 7. The petitioner is unwilling to do the same and hence they are raising illegal obstruction. W.P.C.No.19296 of 2011 2 3. It is not disputed that raising identical allegations, the petitioner has already gone to the civil court. The civil court is already ceased of the matter. A Commissioner has already been deputed by the Civil court. In the civil court, definite assertion of the petitioner is that interference by respondents 4 to 7 is in respect of property covered by Ext.P2 alone. After filing the suit, the petitioner realised that he must seek relief in respect of Exts.P1 to P3 property and it is, in these circumstances, the petitioner has allegedly come to this Court seeking directions. 4. Respondents 4 to 7 have entered appearance. 6th respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit whereas respondents 4 to 5 and 7 have together filed counter affidavits. They have a different version to advance. According to them, the real dispute is not what it is purported to be in this writ petition. It is their contention that they have never demanded any work for themselves or others in the industrial unit proposed to be established. Such allegations are being made falsely and maliciously to side track the real issue. 5. According to respondents 4 to 7, this petition has been filed arraying them as parties. So was the situation when W.P.C.No.19296 of 2011 3 Ext.R4(a) suit was filed. The real dispute is between the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi of Malleswara temple, a temple situated in a property in the locality. According to respondents 4 to 7, on the complaint of the President of the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi Ext.R6(b) crime was registered as early as on 07/06/2011. In that, it is very specifically complained that the petitioner is attempting to destroy the idols and interfere with the peaceful and orderly functioning of the temple. That crime was registered; but the police, succumbing to the influence of the petitioner, is not taking any proper action. 6. This petition was filed as late as on 14/07/2011. But the petitioner has significantly suppressed all information against that crime and the objections raised by the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi and the members of the local public against the attitude of the petitioner of interfering with the temple and its activities under the guise of establishing the industrial unit in Exts.P1 to P3 property. The petitioner had approached the civil court; but realising that no effective interim orders have been obtained from the civil court, the petitioner is now attempting to steal a march over respondents 4 to 7 as also W.P.C.No.19296 of 2011 4 members and the activists of the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi by seeking police protection in this petition. The President of the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi has not been arrayed as a party in this petition or in the suit filed by the petitioner. The intention is obvious. The petitioner is trying to run away with an order of police protection without really bringing before Court all the relevant issues. Inasmuch as it is not revealed before the Civil court that there exists a dispute regarding the temple and its properties, the Commissioner deputed by the Court did not have occasion to specifically report relevant facts to the civil court. The respondents are taking steps to enter appearance in the civil suit and raise all their contentions. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 submit that it is not necessary, in these circumstances, to permit the petitioner to arm himself with an order of police protection at this juncture. The petitioner must raise his grievance before the civil court. The civil court is already ceased of this matter. In these circumstances, no order of police protection need be issued, submit learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7. W.P.C.No.19296 of 2011 5 7. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that according to the police, the real dispute is not relating to any claim for employment by respondents 4 to 7. On the contrary, the dispute is relating to the crime already registered as Ext.R6 (b). There is no law and order situation now. It will be advantageous to refer the parties to the civil court to get their civil dispute resolved in accordance with law, submits the learned Government Pleader. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this Court (another Bench) had, when the matter came up for hearing earlier, arrayed respondents 8 to 10 suo motu. The 9th respondent, as directed by this Court, has filed a report and a sketch also. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as a matter of fact, there is no dispute about the rights of the petitioner over Exts.P1 and P3 properties. The industrial establishment is sought to be established far away from the spot where the idol of the Malleswaram temple is allegedly located. The petitioner does not even admit the fact that there is such a temple or an idol there, submits the learned counsel for the W.P.C.No.19296 of 2011 6 petitioner. 9. We have gone through the report submitted by the 9th respondent. Specific identification of the property is reported to be not possible. 10. Having rendered our anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs, we are certainly of the opinion that there is no necessity for this Court to now invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We perceive the basic dispute to be one between the petitioner, an owner of land and Respondents 4 to 7 and others who are persons who claim to be devotees/temple committee members of an adjacent temple by name Malleswara temple. The petitioner denies even the existence of the temple there. The complaint in Ext.R6(b) evidently relates to interference with the right of worship of local people in such temple and ancillary idols in the locality. 11. We are indisputably of the opinion that the dispute must be resolved by the civil court after giving opportunity to all parties (including real contestants who are said to be not arrayed as parties in the civil suit) to advance their contentions. W.P.C.No.19296 of 2011 7 12. We make it clear that we intend to express no opinion whatsoever on the rights of the petitioner over Exts.P1 to P3 property or about the existence or otherwise of a temple in the locality. We are satisfied that the dispute essentially is not a law and order dispute which the police force can tackle. The dispute essentially is one relating to a claim and counter claim regarding right to enjoy Exts.P1 to P3 property. Unmistakably that question must be resolved by initiating appropriate proceedings before the civil court. We are not, in these circumstances, persuaded to issue any directions of police protection by invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.19296 of 2011 8 W.P.C.No.19296 of 2011 9 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010