IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3740 of 2011(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- LILLYKUTTY JOHN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.S.L.TOURISM & HEALTH PROMOTION COMPANY PVT. LTD., S.L.PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN., REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.K.GEORGE PANICKER, "PALAVILA", TAGORE NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.PRAVEEN HARIHARAN SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRIKKUNNAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.PIN- 686 020 3. SHYAM SUNDAR, AVITTAM (H), PALLANNA MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.686 020 4. SATHYAN, S/O.SHANMUGHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, MAREDATH, PALLANNA MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.686 020 5. CHANDRAN, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN, AGED 52 YEARS, MAREDATH, PALLANNA MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.686 020 WP(C)NO.3740/2011 6. SADANANDAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, MAREDATH, PALLANNA MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.686 020 7. SATHYAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, VALUCHIRAYIL, PALLANNA MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.686 020 8. SURESH, VALUCHIRAYIL, PALLANNA MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.686 020 9. PRASANNA, W/O.SURESH, AGED 34 YEARS, VALUCHIRAYIL, PALLANNA MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.686 020 10. RAJU, VALUCHIRAYIL, PALLANNA MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.686 020 11. VALSALA, W/O.RAJU, AGED 40 YEARS, MAREDATH, PALLANNA MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.686 020 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3 TO R11 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.B.K.RAJAGOPAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.3740/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.177/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPAD. P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.177/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPAD. P3 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 16/12/2010 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.NO.177/2010. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/12/2010 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPAD. P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/01/2011 REQUESTING POLICE PROTECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A) COPY OF THE C.M.A.NO.6/2011 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA. R4(B) COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 28/10/2010 ALONG WITH THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.3740 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 11, there is a civil dispute pending. The petitioner asserts her right to construct a compound wall around the property belonging to her. Respondents 3 to 11 object to the attempt to construct the compound wall asserting a right of way through the property. Admittedly the petitioner had earlier permitted movement of vehicles etc. through the alleged pathway. But according to the petitioner, that was done not in recognition of any right of respondents 3 to 11, but only on humanitarian grounds to ensure that the relief of tsunami rehabilitation was made available to the sufferers. 2. Be that as it may, respondents 3 to 11 have already gone to the civil court asserting a right of way through the property of the petitioner. They had sought an interim relief also. It was initially granted. But subsequently by Ext.P4 order, after appearance of the petitioner, the said interim order was vacated. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 11 submits W.P(C) No.3740 of 2011 2 that the said order is challenged and is pending before the appellate court, ie. District Court, Mavelikkara, as C.M.A No.6 of 2011. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding in Ext.P4 clearly suggests that respondents 3 to 11 have no right to insist on any right of way through the petitioner's property. Their action of obstructing the construction of the compound wall is hence illegal, asserts the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even ignoring the pendency of the suit, it may be seen that law and order situation is disturbed by respondents 3 to 11, who obstruct the petitioner from constructing a compound wall around her property. The petitioner is the Managing Director of a private limited company. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. Ext.P4 is an interim order which has not become final. We have no hesitation to agree that merely because there are some findings in Ext.P4, which has not become final and which is under challenge, this Court would be justified in invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to permit the petitioner to be armed with an order of police protection to enable her to construct a compound wall W.P(C) No.3740 of 2011 3 obstructing the civil right asserted by respondents 3 to 11 in the civil suit. The petitioner, according to us, must seek appropriate relief from the civil court in the pending suit or in an independent civil suit and claim her rights/interim orders. We are not persuaded to agree that our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can, need or deserves to be invoked. 5. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/