IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35826 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MEERA SURENDRAN, W/O.LATE SURENDRAN, AGED 57 YEARS, 36/851-B, SPICE STREET, CHANDINI, KALOOR, KOCHI. BY ADVS. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.HARISH R. MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN- 680 664. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN- 680 685 3. ANANTHAN, S/O.VADAKKOT KESAVAN, PANAPARAMB DESOM, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN- 680 664. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 35826/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.996/2004 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KODUNGALLUR. P2 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1016/2004 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KODUNGALLUR. P3 COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN CMA NOS. 10/2005 AND 11/2005 OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.35826 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents 1 and 2 to afford sufficient police protection to the tenants of the Petitioner to peacefully live in the building situated in 46 ½ cents in Sy Nos.86/5, 864A and 86/4B of Perinjanam Village in Kodungallur Taluk owned by the petitioner from any threat and intimidation from the part of the 3rd respondent or his men, agents or proxies. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner is the owner of 46 ½ cents with a building. The 3rd respondent owns the property on the immediate western side of the property of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent claims easement right through the property of the petitioner. Two suits are pending. There is an order of W.P.C.No.35826 of 2010 2 injunction in the suit restraining the 3rd respondent from causing obstruction to the construction of the compound wall by the petitioner provided the construction of the compound wall is in such a manner leaving a gap of 1 ½ feet at the place wherein the 3rd respondent claims to have a way to his property. The 3rd respondent has been implicating all sorts of difficulties to the tenants in the building, that none of them could ever live there peacefully. The 3rd respondent is an active worker and local leader of CPI(M). It is stated that, at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the property is made a local station for the drunkards and anti-social elements in the locality. When the present tenant along with her children came to reside in the building on 18/11/2010, she was threatened and intimidated by the 3rd respondent and his men on the very same day that she could not live there even for a day. A complaint is filed. 4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. In the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent denies the allegation that he is a worker of the ruling party and that he has threatened the tenants of the petitioner. The tenants by name Kannan and Sarala were earlier residing in the house for W.P.C.No.35826 of 2010 3 two years. He also denies the allegation of threatening the tenant namely Lijesh and Sainaba. The police called upon the 3rd respondent in connection with Ext.P4 complaint and recorded his statement and convinced of his innocence on getting the version of the tenant Sainaba. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that the 3rd respondent has no intention to harass the tenants of the petitioner. 6. We record the said submission and close the writ petition. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.35826 of 2010 4 W.P.C.No.35826 of 2010 5 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010