IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 31654 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K. MADHAVA KURUP, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SRI. ERUVATTIKKAVU TEMPLE, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, ERUVATTY DESOM, KOTTAYAMPOIL, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR-670 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADIRUR-670 642. 3. PAZHAYAMADATHIL RAMACHANDRA MARAR, S/O. SAKARA MARA, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, ERUVATTY DESOM, KOTTAYAMPOIL.P.O., THALASSERY TALUK-670 643. 4. EDACHERI GOVINDA MARAR, S/O. V.C. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, 'PAVITHRAM' KOTTAYAM AMSOM, ERUVATTY DESOM, KOTTAYAMPOIL.P.O. THALASSERY TALUK-670 643. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 31654/2010-F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/01/2008 IN O.S.332/2002 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KUTUPARAMBA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 31/01/2008 IN O.S.332/2002 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KUTUPARAMBA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25/02/2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24/06/2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/08/2009 IN WP(C) NO. 23627/2009. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06/07/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.31654 of 2010-F ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following relief: “to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the Ist respondent to give adequate and effective police protection to implement Ext.P1 and P2 decree and to remove constructions which intents to take vehicles through the temple property.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the Chairman of Board of Trustees of Sri.Eruvattikkavu Temple, in Kannur District. Petitioner had filed a suit for injunction against the persons who are trespassing into the temple property and also taking vehicles through the temple property as OS No.332/2002 which is decreed vide Exts.P1 and P2 judgment and decree. It is stated that when the petitioner has taken steps to construct a compound wall the same was obstructed. Petitioner filed Exts.P3 and P4 complaints. Petitioner had approached this Court and this Court passed Ext.P5 judgment and has given certain directions. The complaint is that respondents 4 and 5 and some others are attempting to trespass into the temple WPC No.31654/2010 -2- property which is against Ext.P1 and P2 judgment and decree. In Ext.P1 what is stated is as follows: “Issue Nos.1 to 4 found in favour of the plaintiff. Hence the suit is liable to be decreed with cost to the plaintiff. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, the defendants their men and agents in their individual capacity as well as representative capacity are hereby permanently restrained from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property or committing any waste therein or in any way interfering with the peaceful possessions and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff or utilising any portion of the plaint schedule property for any road or taking any vehicles through the plaint schedule property or any portion thereof. Needless to say that this decree will not affect the right of the defendants, their men and agents in their individual capacity and representative capacity to use the way in the plaint schedule property for pedestrian passage.” 3. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent wherein it is inter alia stated as follows: “Witness 8 is also residing nearby the temple and he stated that he has also participated in the meeting conducted on 30.10.2009 with the local leaders of different social and political agencies, in which the decision was made to renovate the footpath in front of the temple, and he has no information about the accused. Witness 9 also residing nearby the temple stated that he had not seen the incident and he has not known about the accused. Witness 10 and 11 are the Secretary and President of the Eruvattikkavu Seva Samithi respectively, they are stated that they have conducted a meeting on 30.10.2009 in which the decision was made to renovate the footpath in front of the temple, they also stated that they reached the temple on getting the information about the incident from the temple on 24.01.2010. According to them, they have also no suspicious about anybody. Witness 12, 13, 18 and 19 are the leaders of different social and political agencies, they stated that they have also participated in WPC No.31654/2010 -3- the meeting conducted on 30.10. 2009 in which the decision was made to renovate the footpath in front of the temple, and they reached the temple on 24.01.2010 morning on getting information about the incident from the temple, and they also have no suspicious about anybody. Witness 14 was the Village Officier of Kottayam village, stated that the scene of crime which was included in R.S.6/5 was possessed by Eruvattykavu Devaswam Ooraler as per the village office records, and a certificate was issued in this regard as requested by the police. Witness 15 and 16 are residing nearby the temple, stated that they have not seen the incident and not known about the accused. Witness 17 was the complainant and the Chairman of Eruvattikkavu temple board of trustees. He stated that, since he is laid up due to some illness, the temple is managing by Kunhananda Kurup and he stated the same matters in the complaint. He also stated that there was mischief committed for Rs.500/- and he has not suspicious about any person. Witness 20 is residing nearby the temple, stated that he was not seen the incident and not known about the accused. Since, there was no information about the accused in spite of a detailed enquiry a factual report has been submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Kannur for seeking permission to treat this case as Un Detected (UD). The sanction has been obtained from the Superintendent of Police, Kannur on 14.7.2010 vide Order No.1034/DCRB/10 and the final report of the above case has been submitted before the Hon'ble Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery as Un Detected (UD) on 14.7.2010. The petitioner acquired an order OS 332/2001 from the Hon'ble Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba against the trespass of vehicles in the property of Eruvattikavu temple. The petitioner has earlier filed a petition before the Hon'ble Court against the obstruction of third (Ramachandra Marar) and fourth (Govinda Marar) respondents in the construction work on the temple land vide WP (C ) 23627/09. In this regard, a report has already been submitted before this Hon'ble Court in connection with the WP (C ) 23627/09 filed by the complainant, by stating that, there is no obstruction or hindrance is existing from any side in the construction work on temple land and hence there is no need for WPC No.31654/2010 -4- police protection. At present other convenient pathways are available for the respondents, to their house and hence there is no need for the above footpath. It is submitted that adequate protection would be given to the petitioner to conduct the construction work in the temple land as and when required.” 4. We have issued notice to the party respondents. Though served, there is no appearance for them. In such circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition by recording the statement as aforesaid. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS