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 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 6527 of 2010(M) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ABDUL SHAJAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.ASHAROF, ARAYALUVULA HOUSE (SHAJEELA MANZIL), KURAKKANNI, VARKALA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION. 2. THE PRESIDENT, VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI, VARKALA UNIT. 3. THE SECRETARY, VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI, VARKALA UNIT. ADDL.4. ABDUL SALAM ALIAS RAJAN, S/O. ABDUL MAJEED (MADHU), YAMUNA, MAITHANAM, VARKALA. (ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16.3.10 IN I.A.NO.3457/10). R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. ADV. SMT.SHEEBA JOSEPH FOR ADDL.R4. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.6527 OF 2010 M PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 15.02.2010. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED DATED 25.02.2010. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26.02.2010. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 31.12.2006 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ABDUL SALAM. EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN O.S.63/2010 DATED 24.2.2010 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA. EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE CALLING FOR THE HARTHAL ON 9.3.2010. EXT.P7TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.286/2010 DATED 10.3.2010 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A) RENT DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF ONE RAJAN ALIAS ABDUL SALAM. EXT.R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITHI. EXT.R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.72/10 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA. EXT.R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMNPLAINT FILED BY RAJAN. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO.6527 OF 2010 M --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th June, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a mandamus commanding the first respondent to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner enabling him to enter into room No.VI/734 of Varkala Municipality and to do the maintenance work with his workmen, without any obstruction or threat from respondents 2 and 3 and their men. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the absolute owner of shop room No.VMC VI/724 of Varkala Municipality. It is a part of a big commercial building and other rooms are let out to various tenants by the petitioner's father. Room No. VMC VI/724 was let out to one Gopinathan Nair for conducting a hotel. On his death, his legal WPC.NO.6527/2010 M 2 heirs conducted the hotel. When they tried to induct a stranger, Mr. Abdul Salam (later on impleaded as additional fourth respondent in this Writ Petition), the petitioner filed OS.No.63/10 before the Munsiff Court, Varkala and the Court restrained the legal heirs of late Gopinathan Nair from inducting the said Abdul Salam. Subsequently, the legal heirs of Gopinathan Nair executed Ext.P2 release deed terminating the lease and surrendered the room on 25.02.2010. On 26.02.2010, the petitioner accompanied by a workman, went to the room to do the necessary maintenance work. Then, respondents 2 and 3 along with some men abused the petitioner and threatened him. Petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint and hence the prayer. 2. As already noticed, Mr. Abdul Salam who is the defendant in OS.No.63/10 got himself impleaded in this Writ Petition as additional fourth respondent. A Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 2 and 3 to which a Reply Affidavit is also filed by the petitioner. It is stated to be a composite reply to the Counter Affidavits of the party respondents. The case of the WPC.NO.6527/2010 M 3 party respondents appears to be that there is a lease agreement with the additional fourth respondent. He is stated to be one Rajan alias Abdul Salam. He is a member of the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasai Ekopana Samithy. There is reference to the Suit filed by the additional fourth respondent against the petitioner as OS.No.72/10 before the Munsiff Court, Varkala. There is also reference to the Interlocutory Applications filed. 3. We heard Shri B.S. Swathi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Subhash Cyriac, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents besides the learned Government Pleader. 4. It is common case that there was an interim order passed by the learned Munsiff as per which the key of the shop room in controversy was directed to be handed over to the Court after permitting the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the shop room to ascertain certain facts. It is further admitted case that the said order came to be challenged in W.P.(C).No.12952/2010 and the direction by the Munsiff Court to the petitioner to WPC.NO.6527/2010 M 4 deposit the key of the shop room in the Court, was set aside, subject to certain conditions. They include, inter alia, the following condition: “ii. Petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.63 of 2010 shall file an affidavit in the trial court within three days from this day undertaking not to remove any of the articles or other materials, that may found in the shop room and as may be reported by the Advocate Commissioner and that he shall maintain such articles and materials in the said room awaiting orders from the court below on Exts.P2 and P6 applications, that the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.63 of 2010 shall not until orders are passed on Exts.P2 and P6 applications, hand over possession of the said shop room to any other person or himself do any act or business in the said room.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would only press the prayer as framed which is against respondents 2 and 3 and would submit that Suits are pending as between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Learned counsel for the party WPC.NO.6527/2010 M 5 respondents would point out that respondents 2 and 3 have no intention to interfere or obstruct the petitioner in his rights. But, he only apprehends that if the additional fourth respondent is going to become the President or Secretary, any such order may be misused as in the party array of this Writ Petition, respondents 2 and 3 were not impleaded in their personal capacity. 6. In the circumstances of this case, we take note of the submission of learned counsel for the party respondents and record the same. We further direct that in case there is any obstruction or threat to the petitioner by the present office bearers, namely the President or the present Secretary, who are arrayed as respondents 2 and 3, the first respondent shall afford protection to the petitioner for his life as against them. We, however, make it clear that this Judgment should not be understood as in any way entitling the petitioner for protection for the purpose of committing violation of the conditions which have been imposed by this Court in W.P.(C).No.12952 of 2010 WPC.NO.6527/2010 M 6 which we have already extracted in this Judgment. We also make it clear that we have not pronounced on the contentions raised by the petitioner and the additional fourth respondent and that is a matter to be decided by the competent Forum. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge