IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5883 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOSEPH M.J., S/O.V.K.JOSEPH, VANIAPURAKKAL MULLAIKKAL HOUSE, THAICHIRA, PURAKKADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR, AMBALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION-688 001. 3. SUNI, D/O.P.S.THOMAS, PARAPPALLYIL HOUSE, EDATHUA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-689 573. 4. P.S.THOMAS, PARAPPALLYIL HOUSE, EDATHUA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-689 573. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.5883/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF the F.I.R NO.456/2009OF AMABALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION. P2 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.2892/2009DATED 31/10/2009. P3 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.414/2009 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P4 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.414/2009. P5 COPY OF THE ORDERIN O.S.NO.414/2009 DATED 6/11/2010. P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7/1/2011. P7 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20/2/2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.5883 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner is the husband of the third respondent and the fourth respondent is his father in law. There is a strained relationship between the petitioner and the third respondent. The third respondent had gone to court and had obtained an order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner had gone to the civil court with a suit and an interim application was filed to restrain the third respondent from entering his house. That petition has been dismissed, it is submitted. 2. The bone of contention in this petition is an engineering concern run in the name and style 'Jes Engineers' by the petitioner herein. According to the petitioner, he had executed a power of attorney in the name of his wife. That power of attorney has subsequently been cancelled. According to the petitioner, there is illegal wpc No.5883/2011 2 obstruction now from respondents 3 and 4 against peaceful running of the engineering concern by the petitioner. His short prayer is that appropriate directions under Article 226 may be issued to afford protection to him to run his engineering concern without any obstruction/objection from respondents 3 and 4. 3. Respondents 3 and 4 have entered appearance. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that respondents 3 and 4 have absolutely no objection in the petitioner running his engineering concern 'Jes Engineers' in the manner that he chooses to. They shall not raise any obstruction or objection, submits the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. It is not necessary to issue any directions under Article 226 for the said relief, submits the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2, submits that in the perception of respondents 1 and 2, there is no threat whatsoever for the petitioner to run his engineering concern from respondents 3 and 4. Such a threat does not exist. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We wpc No.5883/2011 3 find merit in the contention of respondents 3 and 4 that this petition has been filed by the petitioner raising the bogie of obstruction/interference from respondents 3 and 4 only to steal a march over respondents 3 and 4 in the litigations pending between the petitioner and the third respondent. 6. We record the undertaking of respondents 3 and 4 that they have no intention whatsoever to interfere with the running of Jes Engineers by the petitioner. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police do not perceive any such threat. We are satisfied that no direction now need be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/