IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1451 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. T.V.SUPRIYA KUMARI, D/O.T.V.NARAYANAN NAIR, SURABHI, ROYAL STREET, OLLUKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. T.V.SUSEEL KUMAR, MOOKAMBIKA, TC 37/620(1), CHOTTUPURA STREET, WEST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. T.V.NARAYANAN NAIR, SNEHANILAYAM, TC 54/2380, VISWABHARAN ROAD, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARAMANA POLICE STATION, KARAMANA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA ADV. SRI.V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R4 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1451 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 28.10.2010. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 30.10.2010. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ACCIDENT REGISTER-CUM-WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 28.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER, GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 29.12.2010. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS DATED 29.12.2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.12.2010 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1962/2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.10.11.2008. EXT.R5(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.12.11.2008 IN I.A.NO.9479/2008 IN O.S.NO.1962/2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R5(c): TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DT.30.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER. EXT.R5(d): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.28.10.2010 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.1451 of 2011-F ***************************** Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to them for enjoyment of the property purchased by the 1st petitioner from the wife of the 4th respondent and also for protection to the life and person of the petitioners. 2. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the children of the 3rd petitioner. Petition No.1 had allegedly purchased about 25 cents of property from the 4th respondent. The 1st petitioner is a woman. Petitioners 2 and 3, her brother and father, claim to be managing the property on behalf of the 1st petitioner. According to the petitioners, respondents 4 and 5, who are the husband and son respectively of the vendor of the property to the 1st petitioner, are causing unnecessary, unjustified and violent obstruction to the enjoyment of the property by petitioners 1 to 3. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come to this Court for issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection from the wanton, contumacious, culpable and violent acts of respondents 4 and 5. W.P(C) No.1451 of 2011-F 2 3. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance through a counsel. A counter affidavit has been filed by them. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that between the parties, there is a dispute regarding possession and identification of property. Respondents 4 and 5 are not creating any unjustifiable objections. They are already before the civil court and the wife of the 4th respondent has already filed O.S.No.1962 of 2008 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Earlier, the 1st petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and injunction and the same was dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, in these circumstances, submits that the petitioners are involved in a mala fide attempt of attempting to steal a march over respondents 4 and 5 by seeking police protection without impleadng the wife of the 4th respondent, with whom petitioners 1 to 3 have a property dispute. She has deliberately not been arrayed as a respondent. It is made to appear that there is some disputes between respondents 4 and 5 and the petitioners. The true facts have not been placed before Court. The petitioners, in these circumstances, are not entitled to obtain any directions in their favour under Article 226 of the Constitution, contends the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. W.P(C) No.1451 of 2011-F 3 5. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that in the perception of respondents 2 and 3, there is no threat or risk to the life and person of the petitioners. There are some property disputes and there has been certain untoward incidents consequent to such property disputes between the parties. The parties are already before civil court. Police do not want to get involved in the civil dispute between the parties. It is upto them to go to the civil court and get a clear order in support of their respective stand. If in the meantime there is any act of threat or violence against the petitioners or respondents 4 and 5 and Jayamma (their wife/mother), appropriate action shall be taken by the police, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We are satisfied that essentially there is a civil dispute between the parties. The police cannot attempt to resolve a civil dispute. Parties are already before the civil court and they must seek appropriate directions from the civil court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a valiant attempt to contend that there is no dispute in relation to certain items of property. Going by the nature of the disputes that have been raked in the civil proceedings, we are unable to go in such depth to the disputes between the parties pending before the W.P(C) No.1451 of 2011-F 4 civil court. The fact remains that unmistakably, there is a civil dispute between the parties about the enjoyment/identification of the property sold by the wife of the 4th respondent to the 1st petitioner. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no directions under Article 226 of the Constitution can or need be issued at this juncture. 8. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/