IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34131 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOHN C.VARGHESE @ C.V.JOHN, RESIDING AT TRIVANDRUM BIBLE COLLEGE CAMPUS, POWDIKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SRIKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GEORGE VARGHESE, EBENEZER, POWDIKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R4 SRI.V.VIJULAL FOR R4 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL – R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 34131/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.192/2008 OF SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.8.2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED MUNSIFF IN IA NO.4099 OF 2008 AND 4508/2008. EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 2.11.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R4(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 14.10.1988 APPOINTING THE MANAGING COMMITTEE. EXT.R4(b) – TRUE COPY OF RESIGNATION LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 29.1.07. EXT.R4(c) – TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2007. EXT.R4(d) – TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 12.2.2007. EXT.R4(e) – TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 22.1.2008. EXT.R4(f) – TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 12.5.2008. EXT.R4(g) – TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF PROSPECTUS OF THE COLLEGE. EXT.R4(h) – TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.6.2008 IN WP(C) NO.14710/08. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.34131 OF 2008-L ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd December, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner claims, he is the life-time Executive Director of New Life Ministries, which is an evangelical society registered for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. The 4th respondent claims, the petitioner has resigned from the post and the said respondent has been elected as the Executive Director. There is serious dispute between the parties concerning the right to administer the aforementioned society and its properties. The 4th respondent has filed O.S.No.940/2008 before the Ist Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram to establish his right to administer the society and its properties to the exclusion of the petitioner. In that suit, I.A.No.4099/2008 was filed, seeking an interim injunction against the defendants therein, including the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed a counter injunction WPC 34131/2008 2 application, that is, I.A.No.4508/2008 in that suit. The petitioner along with other defendants prayed for an order of injunction to restrain the 4th respondent and his agents from trespassing into the counter claim schedule property or to interfere with the affairs of the Trivandrum Bible College, established by the aforementioned society. Both the Interlocutory Applications were heard together and dismissed by the learned Munsiff, holding that the matter can be decided only after taking evidence and at the time of final disposal of the suit. 2. The petitioner submits, the civil court has held that the 4th respondent has not established his right over the property. But, the 3rd respondent S.I of Police is acting in a partisan manner and the said officer is supporting the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent has registered a false crime against the petitioner. In the above background, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 petition before the 2nd respondent Superintendent of Police. In that petition, he has voiced his grievance regarding the partisan attitude of the 3rd respondent. But, the prayer in that petition is to take urgent action to safeguard his interest and to enable him to visit his ailing father, who is staying in an WPC 34131/2008 3 apartment in the compound of the College. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 containing the above request reads as follows: “Considering the above stated facts, it is requested that urgent actions be taken to safeguard my interest and to enable me to visit my father, attend to his needs and to stay in my apartment, without any obstruction from the police or Sri.George Varghese.” Thereafter, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 3rd respondent not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in any manner. (ii) Declare that the restrictions imposed by the 3rd respondent on the petitioner and his wife in the matter of entering the premises of Trivandrum Bible College are illegal. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order directing the 3rd respondent to prevent any obstruction created by the 4th respondent to the petitioner and his wife in visiting the petitioner's father and staying in his apartment.” 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, seriously disputing the claim of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner was found indulging in immoral activities with two Manipuri girls, which was videotaped by his wife and sent to the Chairman of the aforementioned society. Thereupon, the petitioner resigned from the WPC 34131/2008 4 post of Executive Director and the 4th respondent has been elected in his place. Now, the petitioner is residing in Bangalore and all the properties of the society, including the Bible College and the apartments in the college campus are in the possession of the 4th respondent. One day the petitioner came and broke open the locks of the apartment, which was used by him once and put new locks. On information lodged by the 4th respondent the police have registered a crime against the petitioner. The 4th respondent further submits that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court for police protection and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move the civil court for appropriate orders. In view of the said judgment, the present writ petition is not maintainable, it is submitted. 4. We heard the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. He submitted that the police are not taking sides. The police registered a crime based on the information lodged by the 4th respondent, as the petitioner has broke open the locks of an apartment and put new locks in their place. 5. The dispute between the parties, mentioned above, is a civil WPC 34131/2008 5 dispute, which has to be resolved by the civil court. The police should not, normally, interfere in these matters. They may act, if only directed by the civil court. But, if any cognizable offence is reported, needless to say, the police can take action in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition (civil) No.14710/2008 filed by the petitioner earlier was for the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, orders or directions, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioners for residing within the campus of the Trivandrum Bible College and also to handle the day to day administration. (b) Issue a writ in the nature of declaration to declare that the respondents 5 to 8 have no authority to interfere in the functioning of the Trivandrum Bible College, as long as the Bye-laws, Memorandum and Articles of Association hold good.” Comparing with the present prayers made by the petitioner, we feel that prayers (ii) and (iii) made now are in effect, repetition of the prayers made earlier before this Court and rejected by this Court. If the second prayer is granted by us, it will, by necessary implication, give a right to the petitioner to enter the premises of the Trivandrum Bible College. If the 3rd prayer is allowed, it will uphold the right of the petitioner to WPC 34131/2008 6 enter the residential quarters in the college campus. In this jurisdiction, we are concerned only with the failure of duty from the part of the police. Since the police do not have any power to interfere in this civil dispute and help the petitioner as desired by him, we are not justified in issuing any direction to the police. We find that the police cannot be said to be in breach of their duty towards the petitioner. In fact, since the petitioner had earlier failed to get reliefs in the writ petition filed by him and also in the I.A filed before the civil court, the present Writ Petition is an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, it is dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not affect the contentions of the petitioner in O.S. No.940/2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Nm/