IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4517 of 2008(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. V.KUNJAMMA, W/O.LATE SANKARAN, BELANTHADUKKAM HOUSE, BEDADUKKA P.O., CHENGALA (VIA), KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. K.PADMINI, W/O.BHASKARAN, BELANTHADUKKAM HOUSE, BEDADUKKA P.O., CHENGALA (VIA), KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BEDADUKKA POLICE STATION, P.O.MUNNAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, KASARAGOD. 4. K.GOPALAN, S/O.KANNAN MANIYANI, BELANTHADUKKAM HOUSE, BEDADUKKA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. KUNHIRAMAN.C., S/O.C.KRISHNAN, BELANTHADUKKAM HOUSE, BEDADUKKA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. W.P.(C). NO.4517/2008-K: 6. C.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMAN, R/AT. DO. 7. ANILKUMAR, S/O.KUMARAN, BELANTHADUKKAM HOUSE, BEDADUKKA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 8. B.K.KRISHNAN, S/O.B.K.KOMAN, R/AT. DO. 9. VINAYAKUMAR.C., S/O.C.KUNHIRAMAN, R/AT. DO. 10. A.V.SASI, S/O.A.V.NARAYANAN, NEERKKAYA (H), P.O.KUNDAMKUZHI, KASARAGOD. 11. P.SURESH, S/O.P.C.VASU, NIDUMBAYAL HOUSE, P.O.KUNDAMKUZHI, KASARAGOD. 12. PAKKEERAN KARANAVAR, S/O.K.KANNAN, BELANTHADUKKAM HOUSE, BEDADUKKA P.O., KASARAGOD. 13. C.RAMAN, S/O.RAMAN, R/AT. DO. 14. THANKARAJAN, S/O.AYYACHAYI, R/AT. DO. 15. KUMARAN, S/O.THANKARAJAN, R/AT. DO. 16. C.RAMAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, R/AT. DO. 17. SIBI, S/O.VARKEY, NEERKKAYA HOUSE, P.O.KUNDAMKUZHI, KASARAGOD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SALIM.P.A, ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4517/2008-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY R3 TO THE P.1. DTD. 01/01/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY R3 TO THE P.2. DTD. 28/12/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1904/2007 IN O.S. 343/2007 DTD. 16/01/2008 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY P.1. TO THE R.1. DTD. 18/01/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY P.2. TO THE R.1. DTD. 18/01/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 26863/2006 DTD. 12/12/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DTD. 16/11/2007 PUBLISHED IN “KARAVAL” DAILY. EXT.R5.B: COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DTD. 15/01/2008 PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. EXT.R5.C: COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DTD. 17/01/2008 PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. EXT.R5.D: COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DTD. 19/01/2008 PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. //TRUE COPY// prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 4517 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioners are the persons, who have been granted permits by the competent authority to dig bore well in their respective properties. Exts.P1 and P2 are the permits. When they tried to dig the bore well on the strength of those permits, respondents 4 to 17 obstructed the same. The petitioners point out that respondents 5 and 10 had earlier filed a suit before the Munsiff Court, Kasaragod in which an injunction was sought against the 2nd petitioner and another prohibiting them from digging any bore well in their respective premises. The said injunction application was dismissed. WPC.4517/2008 -2- 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the suit itself was later dismissed. So, the same party respondents have no right to obstruct the construction of the bore well. Therefore, the petitioners have moved the police for necessary protection by filing Exts.P4 and P5 representations. Since the police did not take any action, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. 3. Though notice to respondents 8,9,13,14,15 and 16 has been served, they have not entered appearance. Respondents 5,7, and 10 have filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the writ petition. They also pointed out that the point raised by the petitioners is covered by the decision of this Court in Krishnan v. Superintendent of Police, 2008(1)K.L.T.892. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to distinguish the said decision on facts. In that case there was no order of the civil court, it is pointed out. Going by WPC.4517/2008 -3- Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 representations, we notice that obstruction simplicitor alone is pleaded in them. So, the proper remedy for the petitioners is to move the civil court and try to get an order of injunction. Further, the police have no authority to peruse the papers presented by the petitioners and take a decision that they have the right to dig the bore well and based on that finding extend necessary protection to the petitioners. In view of the above position and also the principles laid down in Krishnan v. Superintendent of Police, 2008(1) KLT.892, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI ks. JUDGE WPC.4517/2008 -4- ks.