IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8143 of 2011(P) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SARASWATHY DEVI,AGED46, W/O.RAVINDRAN NAIR, KOTTAKKATTU VALIL, PILAPUZHA MURI, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT POIN 690 514. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. SANTHOSH, AGED 30, S/O.DIVAKARAN, PUNNASSERI THARAYIL, PILAPUZHA, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT POIN 690 514. 2. SREELAKSHMI AGED 26, W/O.SANTHOSH PUNNASSERI THARAYIL, PILAPUZHA, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT POIN 690 514. 3. ANIYAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.DIVAKARAN CHAKKATH,NEDUMTHARA, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN 690 514. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN 690 514. 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HARIPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 514. R1-3 BY ADVS. SRI.A.AHZAR SRI.S.KABEER R4 & R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 8143/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 8143 OF 2011P ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court for issue of directions under Art.226 to respondents 4 and 5 to afford protection to the petitioner against culpable and violent conduct apprehended from respondents 1 to 3. 2. According to the petitioner property has been purchased in her name by her father. Respondents 1 to 3 are husband, wife and brother-in-law. They are unnecessarily causing vexation and harassment to the petitioner. There is a dispute regarding a path way between the petitioner and some other neighbours. That matter is already before the Civil Court. Unnecessarily petitioner is being threatened and intimidated by respondents 1 to 3. In these circumstances police protection is prayed for. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that respondents 1 to 3 have no dispute with the petitioner regarding the path way in question. Respondents 1 to 3 have no intention of causing any WPC 8143/2011 2 harm or threat to the life and person of the petitioner. The boot is actually on the other leg. It is the petitioner and her people who allegedly indulged in objectionable conduct of trespass into the property of respondents 1 to 3. A complaint has been filed before the Magistrate. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed. The categoric undertaking of respondents 1 to 3 may be recorded that they have no dispute regarding path way. They shall not in any way cause any harm or threat to the life and person of the petitioner. It is not necessary hence to issue any directions under Art.226 submit the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. 4. Learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 4 and 5 submits that in the perception of respondents 4 and 5 there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. No directions under Art.226 are necessary. If there be any threat the police are duty bound to and shall take appropriate action to abate such threat to the life or person of the petitioner. The petitioner can complain and appropriate action shall promptly be taken by respondents 4 and 5 submits the learned Govt. Pleader. WPC 8143/2011 3 5. Maintenance of law and order is the duty of police and unless exceptional reasons are there this Court will not be persuaded to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.226 to issue any direction to the police about the nature of the action that they must take. Even without any specific directions of this Court the police must discharge the statutory obligations on them We do not in these circumstances think it necessary to issue any specific directions. Suffice it to say that we accept the submissions of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 as also the submissions of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. 6. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed. We may state that in coming to this decision we heavily rely on the submissions on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 by the counsel and the submissions on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 by the learned Govt. Pleader. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 8143/2011 4 WPC 8143/2011 5