IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29959 of 2008(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. T.O.ALEYAS, S/O.KURUVILA ONNITTAN, AGED 50 YEARS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR.P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. ABRAHAM BABY, S/O.T.O.BABY, AGED 37 YEARS, SADANAM, THURUTHIKKAD.P.O, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. GIGY KURIAKOSE, S/O.T.O.KURIAKOSE, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, THURUTHIKKAD.P.O, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.BENNY P.THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DEPUTY SUPERIENTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM. 5. T.O.ABRAHAM, S/O.LATE KURUVILA ONNITTAN AGED 55 YEARS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, THURUTHIKKAD.P.O, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 29959 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioners submit they are the Directors of the company St.Mary's Hotels Private Limited. The 5th respondent and one Mr. Binu Zachariah are also its Directors. The said company is running a hotel called “Windsor Castle Hotel” at Kottayam. The first petitioner and the 5th respondent are brothers. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the nephews of the first petitioner. It is a company constituted by the members of a family. But the dispute arose in the family, that is, among the shareholders regarding the management of the company. The said issue is pending before the Apex court in Civil Appeal No.3446/2006. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the Apex Court in the said Civil appeal which reads as follows: “ In view of the order passed by this Court on 27-2-2008 with the following effect, most of the orders passed against the applicants have been withdrawn. This application has therefore become infructuous. But all the same appellants- respondents in this application are directed not to interfere with the affairs of the hotel but the applicants are directed wpc. 29959/2008 -2- to submit monthly accounts to the respondents and take all major decisions in consultation with them.” The said order would show that at present the affairs of the hotel are to be managed by the 5th respondent. When the petitioners allegedly obstructed the functioning of the hotel, the 5th respondent, Mr.Binu Zacharia and St.Mary's Hotels Pvt.Ltd. approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.14228/2008. In that writ petition, this Court passed an interim order, which is produced as Ext.P2. In the said order, Respondents 2 to 5, who are police officers, were directed to see that the order of the Supreme Court is fully complied with by all the parties and that no law and order situation is allowed to be created by any of them. Now the petitioners have decided to hold a reception in the said hotel in connection with the marriage of Binoj T.Baby, who is the brother of the second petitioner. The reception is scheduled to be held on 18-10-2008. All arrangements were made for the same. While so, when the petitioners went to the hotel on 7-10-2008 to discuss about the details of the reception, the Operations Manager Mr. Dileep along with the 5th respondent and a few other goondas manhandled petitioners 2 and 3 and a crime has been registered by the Chingavanam police under Sections 447, 323 and 34 of the wpc. 29959/2008 -3- Indian Penal code. The petitioners apprehend that the 5th respondent and others will disrupt the marriage reception. So they have preferred Ext.P5 petition before the police seeking necessary protection for conducting marriage reception of Binoj T.Baby. The relevant portion of the representation reads as follows: “While we were taking steps for conducting the reception of Mr.Binoj T.Baby and the invitation cards were printed, the guests were invited and all arrangements for the function had been carried out by the Hotel, suddenly when we approached Mr.Dileep, Operations Manager on 7-10- 2008, he along with T.O.Abraham and certain goonda elements engaged by Mr.T.O.Abraham attacked Mr. Gigy Kuriakose and Abraham Baby. This matter is reported to the police immediately and a crime is registered against the offenders. Mr.T.O.Abraham have then threatened that he will obstruct the marriage reception function of Binoj T.Baby. Please note that we have absolute right to conduct the family function namely the reception of Mr.Binoj T.Baby, who is a shareholder of the company and member of our family. It is apprehended that Mr.T.O.Abraham has engaged goondas for preventing the conduct of the reception in the Hotel Windsor Castle. We request your goodself to provide us adequate police protection for conducting the reception of Binoj.T.Baby in wpc. 29959/2008 -4- the hotel Windsor Castle peacefully and without obstruction from Mr.T.O.Abraham and his men.” 2. Upon enquiry, the petitioners realised that the police officers will not interfere in this matter. Therefore, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions to respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioners for conducting the marriage reception of Binoj T.Baby. 3. Normally, it is for the 5th respondent to decide whether the reception in connection with a particular marriage should be allowed to be held in the hotel managed by him. But the petitioners submit, they being the shareholders and Directors of the Company, they have a right to hold the marriage reception there and the 5th respondent has no right to obstruct it. This essentially is a civil dispute in which the police have no role to play. Going by the representations filed by the petitioners, relevant portion of which we have already quoted, we feel that the police cannot be allowed to meddle in this matter especially when there is an order of the Apex Court on this point and a further order from this Court to the police to implement the order of the Apex Court. This is not an original suit where this court can adjudicate the rights of the parties. This is only a writ petition for police protection wpc. 29959/2008 -5- where we are concerned only with the failure of the police to perform their duty. In the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, if the police did not act pursuant to Ext.P5, we find nothing wrong in the stand taken by them. We cannot compel the police to meddle in the civil dispute. In view of the above position, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. It is clarified that this judgment will not affect the powers of the police to take action in accordance with law, if any cognizable offence is reported. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.