IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6984 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JOSEPH.D.FERNANDEZ, S/O.DAVID V., AGED 72 YEARS, VALIYAVILA HOUSE, PAVATTUMOOLA, PERAYAM, MULAVANA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KOLLAM, PIN-691 001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 502. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 501. 5. RATHEESH, S/O.SARASIJAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KOMALATH HOUSE, PALLIKKAL, MAVELIKARA, PIN-690 503. 6. SATHEESH, S/O.SARASIJAN, KOMALATH HOUSE, PALLIKKAL, MAVELIKARA, PIN-690 503. 7. SHABULAL, S/O.NELAMBARAN, BABU VILASAM, SN PURAM, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 507. 8. JAGADESH, S/O.P.K.RAGHAVAN, SREE MANDIRAM, NELLIMUKAL P.O., ADOOR-691 551. Kss ..2/- ..2... WPC.NO.6984/2011 W 9. SALIM KUMAR, S/O.LAKSHMAN, AGED 50 YEARS, YAMUNNA MANDIRAM, KOYIKKALMURI, EAST KALLADA, PIN-691 502. 10. SAJILAL, S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, AGED 35 YEARS, KANDATHIL HOUSE, EAST KALLADA, PIN-691 502. 11. SASILAL, S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, AGED 37 YEARS, KANDATHIL HOUSE, EAST KALLADA 13, PIN-691 502. 12. SAJAILAL, S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, AGED 33 YEARS, KANDATHIL HOUSE, EAST KALLADA, PIN-691502. 13. SIVAPRASAD, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS, KAVITHA NIVAS, UPPUDU, EAST KALLADA,PIN-691 502. 14. AJITH PRASAD, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 49 YEARS, AARAMAM, CHITTUMALA, EAST KALLADA,PIN-691 502. 15. GOPU KRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAPILLAI, HARITHA, CHERUPUNCHAYIL, CHITTUMALA, EAST KALLADA, PIN-691 502. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISMA R5 TO R7 BY ADVS. SMT.K.G.BINDU, SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL), SMT.PRINCY XAVIER. R9 TO R15 BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.6984/2011 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 29/01/2011. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 29/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE KUNDARA POLICE STATION. P3: COPY OF THE CMP 1279/2011 BEFORE THE JFMC I, KOLLAM. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION ON 25/02/011. P5: COPY OF THE CMP 1293/2011 BEFORE THE JFMC I, KOLLAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A): COPY OF AGREEMENT DTD. 4/10/2010. R5(B): COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT 5 TO 8 BEFORE CI POLICE, KUNDARA. R5(C): RECEIPT DTD. 29/1/11 ISSUED BY THE C.I. DTD. 29/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE C.I. OF POLICE, KUNDARA. R5(D): COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 2/2/2011. R5(E): COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT. R5(F): COPY OF RETURNED POSTAL ARTICLE. R10(A):COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN I.A.NO.3172 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.786/2010. R10(B):COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. R10(C):COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RDO KOLLAM DTD. 26/09/2009. R10(D): COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER DTD. 06/11/2010. R10(E): COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT AGAINST THE PETITIONER DTD. 21/12/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:6984 OF 2011 W ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Art.226 to respondents 2 to 4 police officials under the first respondent to afford protection for him against apprehended violent, contumacious and culpable acts on the part of respondents 5 to 15. 2. According to the petitioner he is the Chairman and Managing Trustee of a foundation which inter alia runs two educational institutions viz., St. Joseph International Academy at Kumbalam and St. Joseph School, Chittumala. According to the petitioner respondents 5 to 15 have certain disputes with the petitioner. They are attempting to forcibly obstruct the peaceful running of the above two educational institutions. Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition claiming issue of directions for police protection. 3. Respondents 5 to 8 have appeared through counsel. According to respondents 5 to 8 they have no intention WPC 6984/2011 2 whatsoever to interfere with the functioning of the two educational institutions in any manner. They have a property dispute with the petitioner. Petitioner is bound to execute document assigning a property to them on the basis of an agreement. Petitioner has not done the same. Respondents 5 to 8 have been insisting that the petitioner must comply with the obligations under the agreement. Respondents 5 to 8 have caused registered notice of demand to be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is attempting to steal a march over respondents 5 to 8 in that dispute by unnecessarily raising an allegation against them that they are trying to obstruct the peaceful running of the two educational institutions. The undertaking of respondents 5 to 8 may be recorded that they shall not in any way interfere with the peaceful running of the two educational institutions. No directions under Art.226 are liable to be issued against them submits the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8. 4. Respondents 9 to 15 have also entered appearance through counsel. They contend that they have also no intention whatsoever to interfere with the running of the two educational institutions. According to them also the motivations of the WPC 6984/2011 3 petitioner are not bonafide. He has come to th is Court to secure an order of protection with ulterior motives. He wants to make use of the same for other purposes and to settle the disputes with the respondents. There is absolutely no obstruction caused against the running of the two educational institutions. Learned counsel for respondents 9 to 15 submits that it may be recorded that respondents 9 to 15 shall not in any way interfere with the peaceful and orderly running of the two educational institutions referred above. But it may be clarified that the order of protection shall not in any way help the petitioner to use the same against the respondents for other purposes. The learned counsel for respondents 9 to 15 submits that there are other disputes. There is an attempt by the petitioner to excavate and remove earth in large quantities from the property. Objections have been raised by the local people including some of the respondents against that. That cannot be described or reckoned as obstruction to the peaceful running of the two establishments. There is also a dispute regarding the putting up of a boundary. The parties are already before the Civil Court. It may be clarified that the order of protection claimed by the petitioner WPC 6984/2011 4 will not in any way help him in such disputes with respondents 9 to 15. 5. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that in the perception of the police officials there is absolutely no threat to the two educational institutions. If there be any threat against the running of the educational institutions from respondents 5 to 15 or any others, necessary action shall be taken by the police to ensure that there is no such obstructions. No directions under Art.227 are in these circumstances necessary submits the learned Govt. Pleader. 6. We note that on 14-3-2011 when the matter came up for hearing the following order was passed by this Court:- “Respondents 5 to 8 and respondents 9 to 15 have entered appearance through different counsel. It is undertaken by counsel that the respondents shall not in any way obstruct the peaceful running of the St.Joseph International Academy at Kumbalam or the St.Joseph School, Chittumala during the pendency of the proceedings. We accept the undertaking of the respondents and direct respondents 2 to 4 to afford police protection till 21.3.2011, if there is any violation of the undertaking.” WPC 6984/2011 5 We are satisfied in these circumstances that the submissions/undertaking of the counsel on behalf of respondents 5 to 15 and the undertaking of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 can be accepted and no further specific directions are necessary in this writ petition. 7. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 6984/2011 6