IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37476 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAVIKUMAR, S/O. NARAYANAPILLAI, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAVISAHANAM HOUSE, PALLIKKACHIRA P.O., PAYIPPADU MURI, PAYIPPADU VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. AMRUTHAKUMAR, W/O. MADHAVAN KUNJUPANIKKR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BUSINESS, MATHOOR VIKOM HOUSE, PONGA MURI, NEDUMIDI POST, NEDUMUDI VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA DIST. 2. KUSUMAKUMARI, W/O. KRISHNANKUNJ PANICKER RESIDING AT SOWGANDHIKAM, KALARCODE WARD, SANDHANAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST 688 003. 3. KRISHNANKUNJU PANICKER, S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, RESIDING AT SOWGANDHIKAM, KALARCODE WAR, SANANDHANAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST, 688 003 4. JAYACHANDRAN @ RATHEESAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN UNNI NAIR, OTHIYOTU KULAPURYIL,NEDUMUDI P.O., ALAPPUZHA 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (HOME), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. WP(C).No. 37476 of 2008(J) 2 7. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 8. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 9. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAPPUZHA CIRCLE OFFICE, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. 10. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMUDI POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R5 TO R10 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.37476 OF 2008 J ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the owner of 9 Ares and 11 Sq.links of land situated in re-survey No.361/2/2 in Nedumudi Village of Kuttanad Taluk. There is a pathway leading to that property. According to the petitioner, it was in existence for more than 100 years and his predecessors in interest were using that pathway to reach the property. Recently, the petitioner cut down certain trees in the property and wanted to transport it using that pathway. When respondents 1 to 4 caused obstruction, he moved the civil court and obtained Exhibit P4 interim order. Notwithstanding that interim order, the obstruction is continuing. Therefore, this Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “ Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, order or direction compelling respondent Nos.7 to 10 to give necessary police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and for transporting the materials from petitioner's property.” W.P.(C)No. 37476/08 -2- The prayer of the petitioner to grant protection to his life is only a convenient ruse to get protection for using the pathway. This is evident from the petitioner's own pleadings contained in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition, which reads as follows: “ The 1st respondent along with the 2nd respondent objected the transportation of the removed trees during the improvements done in his property. In order to avoid the conflict situation, the petitioner herein kept silent and returned from his property.” The above pleading would show that there is threat to his life only when he asserts his right to use that pathway. If the petitioner is prevented from using the pathway notwithstanding Exhibit P4 order, the remedy of the petitioner lies before the very same court, which issued Exhibit P4 order. The civil court can take coercive action against the violator of that order and if found necessary, direct the police to render assistance to him to enforce that order. Incidentally, we notice that the petitioner has not even filed a representation before the police, seeking police protection. Even if such a representation is filed, the fate of this case would not have been different. W.P.(C)No. 37476/08 -3- In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the civil court for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn