IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31529 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SREEKUMARI PRABHAKARAN,KIZHAKKEKARA, VYSHYANAZHIKATHU VEEDU,VILLUMALA PO, KULATHUPUZHA,KOLLAM. 2. V.G.BABU @ BABUKUTTAN,KIZHAKKEKARA, VYSHYANAZHIKATHU VEEDU,VILLUMALA PO, KULATHUPUZHA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.K.G.SAROJINI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM RURAL DISTRICT, KOTTARAKKARA , PIN 691 506. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULATHUPUZHA CIRCLE, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN 691 310. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULATHUPUZHA POLICE STATION,KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN 691 310. 4. CHANDRIKA,MADANTHA KONAM VEEDU, CHERUKARA KANI,THINKALKARIKKAM PO, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN 691 310. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31529/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RATION CARD ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL FOR PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 16/8/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 2/11/2011 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.31529 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioners, a lady and her brother-in-law, have filed this writ petition seeking police protection for their lives as well as for the lives of their workers from what is alleged to be threats and contumacious acts of the 4th respondent. The petitioners complain that even though they filed petitions like Exts.P3 and P4 before various police officers including respondents 1 and 2, they have not taken any action. 2. As directed by us Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and we have heard him also. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 4th respondent accompanied by her henchmen are coming every now and then to the petitioners' property and threatening the petitioner with danger unless the petitioners' convey their property to the 4th respondent. WPC.No.31529/2011 2 4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the averments in the writ petition as well as the various materials placed on record particularly Exts.P3 and P4, we have reason to think that the 4th respondent is claiming some interest over the property of the petitioners. Even then there is no justification for her to take law into her hands and threatened the petitioners with injury to their lives and limbs. According to us, this writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself, even without issuing notice to the 4th respondent, giving limited relief to the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms; 5. The 2nd respondent, before whom Ext.P4 petition is seen submitted by the petitioners, will take up Ext.P4 immediately. The 2nd respondent will conduct an enquiry into Ext.P4 . As part of the enquiry, the 2nd respondent can either summon or meet the 4th respondent. If the enquiry reveals that there is any civil dispute between the petitioners and the 4th respondent in respect of the property, the 2nd respondent shall advise the parties to have redressal of the above civil dispute WPC.No.31529/2011 3 through the process of a competent civil court. If the enquiry reveals that there is subsisting threat to the lives and limbs of the petitioners on the part of the 4th respondent or anybody acting under her , the 2nd respondent will either directly or through the 3rd respondent takes such steps as are necessary for protecting the lives and limbs of the petitioners. At any rate, the 3rd respondent - Station House Officer, Kulathupuzha Police Station shall keep vigil and ensure that the disputes between the petitioners and the 4th respondent do not give rise to any violence or law and order situation. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk