IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24610 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- N.P.ABRAHAM, S/O.MATHEW PAILY, PROPRIETOR,MARBASIL MEDICALS, RESIDING AT NELLIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THANKALAM, THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER SMT.JANCY ALEX RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 101. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686691. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM-686691. 4. MAR MASELIOS MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL, KOTHAMANGALAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHIBU KURIAKOSE,HOSPITAL JUNCTION, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.24610 of 2010-A ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction compelling the respondents 1 to 3 to give necessary police protection for life and property of the petitioner without any obstruction from the 4th respondent and their men. ii. to issue an order or direction compelling the 4th respondent not make any obstruction for the ingress and egress to the petitioners shop rooms by the 4th respondent and their men and also to remove the obstruction caused by them immediately at their cost.” There is a further prayer seeking a direction to take necessary action on Ext.P3 petition. 2. We notice that there is a civil suit pending before the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. There is also an interim injunction. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner would bring to our notice that there is a threat. 3. We are of the view that it may not be a fit case WPC 24610/2010 -2- to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Civil Court. But, we make it clear that, if the petitioner has complained or complains of commission of any cognizable offence by the 4th respondent before the official respondents, they shall take action on the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS