IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32590 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MOLLY THOMAS,W/O.A.THOMAS,AGED 72 YEARS, VALLYATHU HOUSE,EZHANKULAM MURI,NEDUMAN P.O., EZHANKULAM VILLAGE,ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689645 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689645 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689645 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689645 5. SHAWKATH ALI,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMAD HANEEFA,MAYILATHU MANZIL, PUNNALA VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK,KOLLAM-689 695. 6. NASEER.M.H,AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.MUHAMMAD HANEEFA,LAILA MANZIL,MITHRU MALA PO,ANAKUZHI MURI, KALLARA VILLAGE,NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 7. VIJAYAN NAIR,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,UTHRADUM VEEDU, ANAKUZHI MURI,KALLARA VILLAGE,NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 541. 8. SASIDHARAN ACHARI,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.PAPPU ACHARI,K.P.VELASATHIL,MITHRUMALA P.O., ANAKUZHI MURI,KALLARA VILLAGE,NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 541. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.32590 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and their family members from the threat of the respondent No.5 to 8 and their hirelings, ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to provide adequate police protection for continue the crusher unit in the petitioner's property without the feat and threat of the respondent No.5 to 8 and their hirelings. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner and her husband owned a metal crusher unit. Respondents 5 to 8 were entrusted by the petitioner to run the said crusher unit by an agreement on a rental basis. As per W.P.C.No.32590 of 2010 2 the agreement, respondents 5 to 8 ought to have renewed the licence and should also obtain necessary documents from the concerned authorities for the functioning of the said crusher unit. Respondents 5 to 8 have not obtained valid permit and licences. Hence they stopped the functioning of the crusher unit and also violated the conditions. The unit was not functioning for more than two years. The petitioner and her husband are forced to continue the crusher unit with their own workers. But respondents 5 to 8 threatened the petitioner and her husband, not to continue the crusher unit without their permission. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 complaint. Later on, she filed Ext.P2 detailed complaint. It is stated that respondents 5 to 8 trespassed into the property and attempted to damage the machineries of the petitioner. It is also stated that respondents 5 to 8 and their hired goondas came to the house of the petitioner and again threatened the petitioner and her husband and not allowed to start the crusher unit. There is threat, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that a civil suit is filed before the Munsiff Court, Adoor W.P.C.No.32590 of 2010 3 and a complaint is filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor in the year 2009 and on investigation, the complaint is found to be false. 5. In the nature of the allegations, we are of the view that it is for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court if such a suit is already pending or seeking relief as the petitioner is advised. We see no reason at all to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter. Of course, we may hasten to add that if the petitioner complains of commission of any non-cognizable offence by the party respondents before the official respondents, the official respondents will take action, in accordance with law. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.32590 of 2010 4 W.P.C.No.32590 of 2010 5 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010