IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14736 of 2011(N) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- R. VIJAYAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, AGED 49 YEARS, KUNJUVEEDU, KUNNATHUKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.VINOD J. DEV SRI.PRAMOD J. DEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARGODE DISTRICT, KASARGODE – 671121. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHEEMANI, KASARGODE DISTRICT – 671 121. 4. MOHAMMED SHERIF, S/O. JAMEELA UMMA, AGED 30, CHANADUKKAM, CHEEMENI, PETTIKKUNDU P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT – 671 121. 5. UMMAL KURZU, D/O. RUKKIAMMA UMMA, CHEEMENI GRAMAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGODE DISTRICT – 671 121. 6. SHIJADU (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), C/O. MOHAMMED SHERIF, CHANADUKKOM, CHEEMENI, PETTIKKUNDU P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT – 671 121. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.14736 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 to respondents 2 and 3 to afford protection to the petitioner against illegal obstruction allegedly caused by respondents 4 to 6 against the petitioner's attempt to act in accordance with Ext.P1 agreement entered into between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. 2. The fifth respondent is said to be the owner of an item of property. She had entered into an agreement with the fourth respondent. On the basis of the said agreement, the fourth respondent had entered into a transaction with the petitioner regarding slaughter tapping of rubber trees in the property of the fifth respondent. The period of validity of the said agreement is till 28.5.2013. But, respondents 4 and 5 as well as respondent No.6, said to be a relative of the fifth respondent, are causing illegal WPC No.14736 of 2011 2 obstruction to the exercise of rights under the said agreement, Ext.P2. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays for directions to the police to afford protection to the property and the right of the petitioner to act in accordance with Ext.P2 agreement. 3. Why has the petitioner not approached the Civil Court? The dispute appears to be one which is purely a civil dispute between the parties to Ext.P2 agreement. In these circumstances, we are certainly of the opinion that the petitioner must seek his remedy from the civil court. We find no satisfactory or special reasons that can persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. sd/- R.BASANT JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE