IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6113 of 2010(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- S.MUTHAYA,S/O.M.CHUDALA MANI NADAR, AGED 36,RESIDING AT TC 10/1580,SHIVAKRISHNA MANNANTHALA WARD,ULLOOR VILLAGE,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.M.K.SUBHAKARAN SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PEROORKADA POLICE STATION,TRIVANDRUM. 3. BABU,S/O.BALAN,ROJISHA BHAVAN, MANNANTHALA P.O.,ULLOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R3 BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 6113 OF 2010: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF NEW LEASE DEED DATED 10.8.09 EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND LANDLADY, LATHIKA. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.12.2009. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE HOME MINISTER. EXT.P4.TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT OS NO.63/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION PASSED IN O.S.63/2010. EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL POLICE STATION UNDER 2ND RESPONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6113 of 2010-L ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-- “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to grant adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family from any sort of threat, violence or intimidation from the 3rd respondent and his men, agents or servants. ii) to issue appropriate direction to the Ist and 2nd respondents to take preventive action against the 3rd respondent for being indulged in violence and threat as against the petitioner and to protect the petitioner and his family from the clutches of the 3rd respondent, his men and agents.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:-- Petitioner is doing business of collecting waste paper, glass, iron pieces and other waste materials etc. Petitioner is residing and doing business in a rented building from 2001 onwards. It is renewed from year to year. Petitioner is residing at a portion of the premises along with his wife and three daughters and the other portion of the WPC 6113/2010 -2- premises is used as godown. The 3rd respondent is a money lender and sand contractor. It is stated that petitioner was told by the 3rd respondent that the landlady of the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs with interest at 6 per 100 for a month from the 3rd respondent. It is stated that there is some dispute between the landlady and the 3rd respondent and the petitioner is intimidated to vacate the building. It is stated that on 16.12.2009 there was an attack by the 3rd respondent. Petitioner filed complaint. They are demanding to vacate the premises by the petitioner. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent. In para 5 of the counter affidavit it is stated as follows: “5. It is submitted the owner of the property is one V Lathika. She was having 18.500 cents of property in total. It is understood that she entered into a sale agreement with one Rajesh Kumar S/o.Rajappan on 6.4.09 for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- and an advance of Rs.5,50,000/- was also received. Since the sale deed was not executed within six months as stipulated, Rajeshkumar demanded back the advance amount. For the repayment, Lathika decided to sell 3 cents out of the total extent of 18.500 cents. On knowing that the property was put for sale I approached Lathika and after negotiations the said piece of land was WPC 6113/2010 -3- purchased for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. Therein after this respondent has affected mutation and paying land tax. There was absolutely no understanding between the vendor and vendee that the property will be re-conveyed. Lathika has admitted the valid execution of sale deed.” It is also stated that Lathika has filed a civil suit to set aside the sale deed on the ground that the sale deed executed in favour of 3rd respondent is not a real sale deed and that O.S.No.1245/2009 is pending. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that the 3rd respondent reiterate the statement in para 5 of the counter affidavit and he would submit that the 3rd respondent may have to move appropriate forum for evicting the petitioner and he has no intention to forcefully evict the petitioner and that he has no intention to threaten the life of the petitioner. He further says that if any order is granted by this Court it may not influence the Civil Court or other forum where the suit is pending. 5. In view of the facts and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent which we record WPC 6113/2010 -4- the writ petition is disposed of as follows: There will be an order directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide protection to the life of the petitioner and his family from any threat and intimidation from the 3rd respondent and his men. The protection will extent to protection from forcible eviction at the hands of the 3rd respondent and his men. However, we make it clear that when the Civil Court considers O.S.1245/2009 and O.S.63/2010 it will be done totally untrammelled by anything stated in this judgment and this judgment will not in any way enter into consideration of the Court or other authority before whom the 3rd respondent initiates any legal proceedings against the petitioner or Smt.Lathika. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS