IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7674 of 2011(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR.P.T. ABRAHAM, SECRETARY, ST. MARY'S EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL SOCIETY, PALIAKKARA, THIRUVALLA-689 101. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA-689 101. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA-689 101. 3. G. SURESH, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, (MEMBER, KUTTUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT), VENPALA.P.O, THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 114. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTUR-689 106. R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M. CHARISMA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7674 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 18/02/2011. EXT.P1(a): COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 18/02/2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BOUNDARY/PROPERTY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16/02/2011 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.7674 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner against perceived contumacious, culpable and violent acts on the part of the third respondent. 2. The third respondent is a member of the local Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, there is well demarcated boundary between his property on the one side and a road on the other. According to the petitioner, concrete posts are planted on the boundary. The petitioner's intention is not to put up any new boundary, but only to tie up the existing concrete posts by barbed wire fencing. The third respondent is unnecessarily objecting/obstructing such work. Police protection may in these circumstances be granted, it is prayed. WPC No.7674/2011 2 3. The third respondent has entered appearance. Serious objections are raised by the third respondent. The third respondent contends that attempt of the petitioner is to alter the lie of the boundary by securing an order of police protection. There are disputes between the petitioner on the one hand and the local public on the other about the precise lie of the boundary. According to the local people, the petitioner has trespassed into the common property and is attempting to put up a boundary. Under the guise of an order of police protection, the petitioner is attempting to justify his attempt to trespass into the common property. Petition may not be allowed. The petitioner may be directed to seek relief from the civil court to get the boundary ascertained properly in accordance with law, submits the counsel. 4. We have heard both counsel. We do not want to express any authentic opinion on the question as to whose version is correct. Suffice it to say that such a dispute about the precise lie of the boundary cannot be attempted to be resolved by the police or by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. WPC No.7674/2011 3 Parties must get their dispute resolved in accordance with law. We are not persuaded to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to arm the petitioner with an order of police protection without and before getting the boundary identified authentically. This petition is hence dismissed with the above observation. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ WPC No.7674/2011 4 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.7674 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th March, 2011 ORDER Basant, J. Service is not complete. Respondent No.3 has not been served. Respondents 1,2 and 4 though served, there is no representation. Verify service of respondent No.3 and call on 4.4.2011 for hearing and disposal. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/