IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 13944 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRABHAVATHY, "USHUS", T.C.NO.51/2152, LAL LANE, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ANISH RAJ, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, PATTOM SOUTH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. APPU, S/O.CHELLAYYAN, NATIONAL TRADING AGENCY, KOCHAR ROAD, VALIYASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, VALIYARSALA P.O. 5. LATHIKA KUMARI, W/O.APPU, NATIONAL TRADING AGENCY, KOCHAR ROAD, VALIYASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, VALIYASALA P.O. 6. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY. R1, 2 & 6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.T.K. VIPIN DAS ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER FOR R4-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.15.4.2010 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.23.4.2010. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P2. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ENDORSEMENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF THE BALANCE ADVANCE AMOUNT BY THE INMATES. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R4(a) TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1281/2008 DT.11.4.2008 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND RETNAMMA. EXT.R4(b) TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEMOM VILLAGE OFFICE DT. 21.1.2010. EXT.R4(c) TRUE COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION IN RESPECT OF BUILDING T.C. 51/2172 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R4(d) TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.388/2010 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION DT.26.4.2010. EXT.R4(e) TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL STATEMENT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTIONS 24(b) ISSUED BY ICICI BANK. /TRUE COPY/ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 13944 of 2010 P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction commanding and compelling the first respondent to afford adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner, her husband and girl inmates from the hands of respondents 2 to 5 enabling them to reside peacefully. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction commanding the first respondent to take action on Ext.P2 and order action against respondents 2 and 3 for the illegal act of threatening and abusing the petitioner. W.P.(C).No. 13944 of 2010 2 iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction commanding the first respondent to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner and her family members and girl inmates from the hands of the 2nd respondent and his policemen and also to ensure that the petitioner and her family members and girl students are not harassed, threatened, abused or manhandled by the 2nd respondent and his policemen.” 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is conducting a paying guest house situated on the opposite side of her residence. Research students are staying in the house. The said property was purchased by the 4th respondent. Petitioner's husband and the third respondents are friends. When the third respondent requested for some money, petitioner's husband gave Rs.7,22,000/- as loan to the third respondent and the third respondent executed a Promissory Note in favour of the petitioner's husband. The third respondent also entrusted possession of the building bearing No.T.C.51/2172 and the adjoining incomplete building with a W.P.(C).No. 13944 of 2010 3 condition that the petitioner's husband need not pay any rent for the building and also agreed that as and when the amount of Rs.7,22,000/- is paid, the petitioner's husband and the petitioner, who are in legal possession of the building, shall give vacant possession of the building. 3. Allegations are raised to the effect that the 4th respondent did not return the money and the 5th respondent, who is the wife of the 4th respondent, visited the premises along with some goondas and abused the petitioner and the inmates. The petitioner filed a petition before the second respondent, but there is no response. 4. A counter affidavit was filed by respondents 4 and 5 producing certain documents. It is inter alia stated as follows. It is stated that the petitioner's husband was a staff of the 4th respondent's business concern. Ext.R4(a) is the copy of the Sale Deed executed in favour of the 4th respondent. Ext.R4(b) is the tax receipt and Ext. R4 (c) is the Ownership Certificate issued by the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation in respect of the building to the petitioner. Ext.R4(d) is W.P.(C).No. 13944 of 2010 4 the FIR in Crime No.388 of 2010. It is seen from Ext.R4(d) that the deponent and his family are in possession of the house. The 4th respondent had purchased 10 cents and two buildings for Rs.20 lakhs. He had availed a loan of Rs.15 lakhs from ICICI bank to purchase the property. This respondent denies that he borrowed Rs.7,22,000/- from the petitioner's husband and the execution of Promissory Note. It is stated that since the petitioner's husband is residing in a building just opposite to his newly purchased house, a duplicate key of the house was given to him to take care of the property. He was not authorised to let out the building or to conduct any paying guest business. 5. We heard learned counsel for the parties, including the learned Government Pleader. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the women inmates have been ousted from the building. He would submit that there is a direction by this Court to the Commissioner of Police to conduct an enquiry, which is not yet W.P.(C).No. 13944 of 2010 5 complete. The report is not brought on record. It is further submitted that various objects have been taken away from the building. They may be ordered to be returned to the petitioner, he submits. 7. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 on the other hand submitted that when the documents showing their title was shown to the inmates of the house, they voluntarily left the house. He would further submit that respondents 4 and 5 are not threatening the petitioner. 8. Necessarily in the nature of the prayers which are sought and having regard to the nature of the disputes raised in the counter affidavit, the prayers sought for cannot be granted. Even according to the petitioner, the petitioner and the women inmates of the building are no longer in possession of the building. 9. The learned Government Pleader submits that crimes have been registered against respondents 4 and 5 as also against the petitioner. In the light of the submission by the learned Government Pleader that crimes have been registered against respondents 4 and 5, W.P.(C).No. 13944 of 2010 6 we would think that the interim order has been complied with. As regards returning of the articles allegedly belonging to the petitioner in the building is concerned, we are of the view that it is for the petitioner to work out her remedies before appropriate competent forum. 10. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out her remedies before appropriate competent forum, we dispose of the Writ Petition. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm