IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 3175 of 2010(V) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.SUBAIRKUNJU,S/O. ABDULKHADER, AGED 60, VAZHAPPANAYIL HOUSE, PANAVOOR P.O., NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SRI.P.A.SHIBU (PAZHAVAKAT) SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPT.OF POLICE, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MASOODH, JAFFER MANZIL, PANAVOOR P.O., NEDUMANGADU. 5. NASSAR. S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, NIZAM MANZIL, PANAVOOR P.O., NEDUMANGADU. 6. SHAJI,S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, KOTTARA HOUSE, VELLANKUDY, PANAVOOR P.O., NEDUMANGADU. W.P.(C).NO.3175 OF 2010 7. NASSR @ PALLIPPURAM NASSAR, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, THOTTUMUKKIL THADATHINNIKATHU VEEDU, KANGANAMCODE, PANAVOOR P.O.,NEDUMANGADU. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.N. SUKUMARAN. ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R4TOR7 SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR FOR R2TOR4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.3175 OF 2010 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS.NO.793/09 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.6214/09 IN OS.NO.793/09 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY MIOT HOSPITAL, CHENNAI. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 9.1.2010. EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.1.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 3175 OF 2010 V --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to grant adequate and meaningful protection to the life of the petitioner and his family and to run his business. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is conducting timber business. Respondents 4 to 7 are residing in the locality. The 6th respondent is stated to be a leader of Marxist Party and is a Panchayat Member. Petitioner filed OS.No.793/09 before the Munsiff Court, Nedumangadu and obtained Ext.P2 order of injunction. It is stated that there is threat to the life and business of the petitioner from respondents 4 to 7 and after trespassing into the residence and saw mill, they are causing hindrance to the working of the saw mill. Petitioner WPC.NO.3175/2010 V 2 filed complaints. A Counter Affidavit is filed by the fourth respondent, wherein, it is stated that the allegation in the Writ Petition that the fourth respondent and other party respondents are causing threat to the life and property of the petitioner and his family is absolutely false. It is stated that at no point of time, neither the fourth respondent nor the other respondents have indulged in any activity causing threat to the life or property of the petitioner. No law and order situation is existing which warrant interference by police. The dispute existing between the parties is purely civil in nature and there is no necessity to order protection. The subject matter of the dispute is pending before the civil court. It is also stated that the 6th respondent interfered in the dispute only for conciliation of the civil dispute between the wife of the petitioner and the wife of the fourth respondent. It is not disputed that there is a Suit filed by the fourth respondent also. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 besides the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader would WPC.NO.3175/2010 V 3 submit that there is no law and order situation as such. Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 submits that respondents 4 to 7 are not obstructing the running of the saw mill and will not obstruct the running of the saw mill of the petitioner. We record the submission and relegate the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the civil court. 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