IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34594 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PRABHADEVI, AGED 43, D/o.VIJAYAMMA, KALIVILAKATHU VEEDU, KALLVETTAMKUZHY, MANGODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.N.AJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM-691 001. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 003. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 003. 6. V.S. SURESH, S/O. VASUDEVAN, NANDANAM, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI, MUTHAYIL, MANGODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 003. 7. RAJENDRAN, S/O. VASUDEVAN, NANDANAM, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI, MUTHAYIL, MANGODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 003. WP(C).No. 34594 of 2010(Y) - 2 - 8. VASANTHA, W/O. PRATHAPAN, NANDANAM, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI, MUTHAYIL, MANGODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 003 . 9. PRATHAPAN, NADANAM, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI, MUTHAYIL, MANGODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 003 . 10. JAYAMURALIKRISHNA, VAIDYASALAYIL VEEDU, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI, MUTHAYIL, MANGODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 003. 11. SUMA, W/O. JAYAMURALIKRISHNA, VAIDYASALAYIL VEEDU, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI, MUTHAYIL, MANGODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 003. 12. SUBHAYA, W/O. RAJENDRAN, NANDANAM, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI, MUTHAYIL, MANGODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 003. 13. VETTAN SASI, MANDATHIL VEEDU, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI, MUTHAYIL, MANGODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 003. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR FOR R6-R13 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34594 of 2010(Y) I N D E X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2010 IN O.S.NO.223/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.03.2009 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.10.2008 BEFORE THE KERALA STATE WOMEN'S COMMISSION. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.12.2009 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16.05.2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.07.2010. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.08.2010 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.08.2010. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.11.2010. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 30.11.2010. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.11.2010. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 30.11.2010. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 02.12.2010. /TRUE COPY/ R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.34594 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 13th day of January, 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 5 to afford him police protection against the culpable, contumacious, highhanded and violent conduct of respondents 6 to 13. 2. The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 5. Respondents 6 to 13 have been served and they have entered appearance through a counsel. 3. According to the petitioner, there was a dispute between the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 about a pathway. The petitioner went to court. The court by Ext.P1 judgment granted the petitioner's prayer for injunction. That order of injunction is in force. An appeal has been preferred. But the order of injunction has not been stayed and remains in force. The petitioner does not raise any claim for rights in respesct of property. That dispute has now been resolved under Ext.P1, though the appeal is pending. According to the petitioner, W.P(C) No.34594 of 2010 2 because she approached the civil court, respondents 6 to 13 are inimical towards her and are attempting to indulge in culpable, contumacious and violent acts against her. 4. The learned counsel for respondents 6 to 13 submits that the allegation is totally false. Respondents 6 to 13 accept Ext.P1 judgment, subject to the decision in the appeal. They have no intention to violate Ext.P1 judgment. There is no dispute between the parties except the dispute relating to the property. There is no attempt whatsoever to cause any physical harm to the petitioner. Respondents 6 to 13 have no objection against grant of an order police protection to the petitioner. But it should not in any way imply that respondents 6 to 13 have indulged in any contumacious conduct. Appropriate orders may be passed, submits the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 13. 5. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that in the perception of respondents 1 to 5, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. There was a dispute between the contestants. Ext.P1 judgment has been pronounced. That is being observed now by the parties. Both parties have undertaken by the court that they have no intention to go against the directions in Ext.P1 judgment. The W.P(C) No.34594 of 2010 3 learned Government Pleader points out that in fact an interim order was passed by this Court on 22.11.2010. The Bench which considered the matter on 22.11.2010 had passed the following orders: “The learned counsel for the party respondents submits that the party respondents have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner or to violate Ext.P1 judgment in the meantime. We record the said submission.” 6. The said undertaking is in force and there has been no subsequent untoward incidents. If there be any conduct on the part of respondents 6 to 13 contrary to this undertaking in future, necessary action shall be taken by respondents 1 to 5 to afford police protection to the petitioner, submits and undertakes the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We find that there is absolutely no necessity for issuing any direction for police protection now. We record the submission of respondents 6 to 13 that until the appeal is decided, they shall scrupulously follow Ext.P1 judgment. We record their further undertaking that they shall not indulge in any vexatious or W.P(C) No.34594 of 2010 4 contumacious conduct against the petitioner herein. We record the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any culpable and violent conduct on the part of respondents 6 yo 13 contrary to the undertaking given before Court, respondents 1 to 5 shall take appropriate action against them and necessary police protection shall be granted to the petitioner. 7. Recording the above submissions and undertakings, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/