IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 13997 of 2010(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SAJI MATHEW,S/O.MATHEW,AGED 38 YEARS, KASAMKATTIL HOUSE,PAYATTIYAL, CHEMPERI P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY,SPECIAL GRADE GRAMA PANCHAYAT,SREEKANDAPURAM.TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. EDIMANNIKKAL VALSAMMA, W/O.PAPPACHAN, PAYATTIYAL,CHEMPERI P.O.TALIPARMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. ETTIKKIL BABY @ PHILIP,S/O.CHANDI, PAYATTIYAL, CHEMPERI P.O.,CHUNDAPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. K.P.RADHAKRISHANAN, S/O.KUNCHIRAMAN, KAZHAKAPURAYIL HOUSE, ICHERY, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O.,TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA, R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN, R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13997/2010-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 15/02/2010. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 233/2010 DTD. 08/03/2010. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 14/03/2010 FILED BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 4654/2009 IN O.S. NO. 564/2009 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, TALIPARAMBA. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT SUBMITTED IN O.S. NO. 564/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 452/2006 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, TALIPARAMBA. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 564/2009 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, TALIPARAMBA. EXT.R3.C: COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT DTD. 20/01/2010. EXT.R3.D: COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 AGAINST EXT.P.2. EX-PARTE INTERIM INJUNCTION. EXT.R3.E: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT ISSUED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.11999/2007(C). //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.13997 of 2010-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT In this writ petition the petitioner seeks for a direction to the Sub Inspector of Police to see that the injunction order granted by the Civil Court as per Ext.P2 is obeyed by respondents 3 to 5. 2. The petitioner has filed the suit O.S. No.29/2010 before the Sub Court, Payyannur seeking for various reliefs. Ext.P2 is the copy of the order of interim injunction granted by the civil court restraining the defendants in the suit from conducting the quarrying operation by use of explosives and without proper licence. It is the case of the petitioner that in violation of the direction issued by the civil court, respondents 3 to 5 continued the illegal quarrying operation which compelled the petitioner to approach the police by filing Ext.P3 representation. It is averred in the writ petition that the police is not taking any action in the matter. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 and learned counsel for the Panchayat. 4. The counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 to 5 reveals that two other civil suits, viz.. O.S. Nos. 452/2006 and 564/2009 are pending before wpc 13997/2010 2 the Munsiff’s Court, Thaliparamba for the same relief. The latter one is filed by the father as well as wife of the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that suppressing the pendency of these two civil suits, the petitioner filed the present suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the pendency of the other suits. 5. The contesting respondents have filed Ext.R3(d) application to vacate the interim order of injunction. It is also their case that they are not violating the injunction order and are not using explosives. But they are extracting rock only by use of man power. Learned counsel for the Panchayat submitted that the Panchayat has not issued any licence for quarrying. 6. Evidently, there is dispute between the parties as to whether there is use of explosives or not. Apart from that, the police cannot be an arbiter in the civil disputes. If the petitioner wants assistance of the police for enforcement of the order of injunction, he could have approached the civil court by invoking the remedy under Rule 151 C.P.C. For the alleged violation of the injunction order also, the petitioner has got a remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court, at this stage, will not be wpc 13997/2010 3 justified in issuing a direction, especially as the order issued is only an exparte order and the contesting respondents have already filed an application to vacate the injunction order. It is made clear that the parties can approach the civil court itself for adjudication of their disputes and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/