IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20405 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THOMAS.M.P., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.PHILIP, MUNDATTUCHUNDAYIL HOUSE, KONNACKAMALY.P.O., MURICKASSERY VIA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.MARISERVA, THAMILTHARA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. 3. SWAMINATHAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.SETHUMADHAVAN, KIZHAKKEMURI, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. 4. RAJAN, AGED 58 YEARS, CHULLIPALLAM, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WALAYAR POLICE STATION, WALAYAR.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 624. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 001. 3. KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.PAZHANIYAPPA NAICKER, MALAYAMCHALLA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 621. ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN FOR R3 SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20405 of 2011(A) - 2- I N D E X PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.05.11 FILED BY THE LAST PETITIONER ALONG WITH OTHERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.94/Ptn/C2/2011 DT.23.06.11 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF CRIME NO.262/2011 DATED 09.07.11 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.11.07.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS. R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** W.P(c) No.20405 of 2011-A ***************************** Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 - both police officials, to afford protection to the petitioner against illegal, contumacious, culpable and violent conduct on the part of the 3rd respondent. 2. The 1st petitioner claims to be the manager and petitioners 2 to 4 claim to be the owners of an item of property. According to the petitioners, there is a public pathway to reach the said property of the petitioners. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent is raising an illegal obstruction to the use of the pathway by them to reach their property. The 3rd respondent, according to the petitioners, has no legal right to raise any such obstruction. The petitioners are entitled to walk through the public pathway to reach the property of the petitioners and the 3rd respondent is not entitled to raise any such objection. Apprehending violence on the part of the 3rd respondent, when the petitioners attempt to use the said W.P(c) No.20405 of 2011-A 2 pathway, the petitioners are claiming issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The 3rd respondent has entered appearance. The 3rd respondent opposes the prayer. According to the 3rd respondent there is no such public pathway to reach the property of the petitioners. They are attempting to cut out a new public pathway clandestinely through the property of the 3rd respondent by obtaining the order of protection from this Court. Parties had gone to civil court and the 3rd respondent's suit now stands withdrawn as there was no further apprehension after filing the said suit. At any rate, the petitioners, before getting their right to walk through the alleged pathway established by resort to legal proceedings, cannot hope to get themselves armed with an order of police protection to walk through such disputed pathway. According to the 3rd respondent, there is no such pathway through the property of the 3rd respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that according to the police officials, it is only a civil dispute between the parties. They must seek appropriate direction from the civil court about the right of the petitioners to use the said alleged pathway. It is true that on the W.P(c) No.20405 of 2011-A 3 complaint of the petitioners, a crime has been registered against the 3rd respondent alleging indulgence by the 3rd respondent in culpable overt acts. Necessary action is being taken on the said complaint and the same shall be dealt with purely in accordance with law. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no necessity to permit the petitioners to be armed with any order of police protection. The parties may be directed to settle the dispute by resort to the civil adjudicatory process, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We find merit in the stand taken by the learned Government Pleader. At the moment and with the available inputs, we cannot come to any authentic conclusion about the existence of the pathway and the right of the petitioners to use that pathway. If parties have disagreement between them on that civil right, it is for either party or both to go to the civil court and seek appropriate orders. At any rate, we are not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 can, need or deserves to be invoked in favour of the petitioners. 6. The learned Government Pleader assures the Court that if there be commission of any culpable offence or W.P(c) No.20405 of 2011-A 4 apprehension of culpable criminal offences by either side, the police shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. 7. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We are satisfied that no specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution need be issued by this Court. We observe that it is for the parties to get their dispute resolved by resort to appropriate proceedings before the civil court. 8. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/