IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28761 of 2010 (U) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. KODICHAL SREEDEVI TEMPLE, AMAYALTHOTTY, MULLARINGADU, VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, TEMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, SIVADAS EDAPPATTU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT EDAPPATTU HOUSE, MULLARINGADU P.O., IDUKKI DIST. 2. SIVADAS EDAPPATTU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT EDAPPATTU HOUSE, MULLARINGADU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. K.N.NARAYANAN, S/O.NALLAN, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUTTAMMACKAL HOUSE, MULLARINGADU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 602. 2. THE DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA, OFFICE OF THE DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685584. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT – PIN. 685582. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR, KALIYAR POLICE STATION, KALIYAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT – 685582. P T O -2- 5. N.K.BHASKARAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADUKKUDIYIL HOUSE, MULLARINGADU P.O., VANNAPPURAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685582. 6. N.K.SAJEEJ, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADUKKUDIYIL HOUSE, MULLARINGADU P.O., VANNAPPURAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT – 685582. R1TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA R5 & R6 BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH FOR R5-6 SMT.RESMI NANDANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2010, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28761 of 2010 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS. EXT.P1. COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.06 IN OS. NO.75/2005, OS NO.182/2005 AND OS NO.328/2005 OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, THOUDUPUZHA . EXT.P2. COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.09 IN AS NO.12/2007 AND AS NO.13/2007 OF THE IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS ACT CASES, THOUDUPUZHA. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2010 IN IA. NO.461/2010 IN RSA NO.121/2010 THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS. : NIL P.S. TO JUDGE / TRUE COPY / vk THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.28761 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioners state that they are in management of a temple. The private respondents have rival contentions. A branch of Ayyappa Seva Sangham is also apparently involved in the whole issue having regard to the facts attempted to be projected before us. We notice that two R.S.A.s are pending before this Court. In one of them, there is an interim order which is Ext.P3. That order is only one inhibiting commission of acts of waste. Management and doing Poojas in a temple and administering the property would not amount to acts of waste. 2.The second appeals arose from two first appeals which were jointly heard and disposed of. They had arisen from three suits which were jointly tried. Obviously therefore, if any of the WPC.28761/10 2 parties to any among those appeals want any clarification of the orders passed in the second appellate court jurisdiction, it is for him to seek relief from that jurisdiction rather than create any litigation. We notice that this writ petition is filed against alleged police harassment rather than complaining to the second appellate court about any problem in having the order of temporary injunction enforced. 3.The complaint of the petitioners is that the local Sub Inspector of Police treats the order passed by this Court as one that enables him to summon parties to the police station. Learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that the police would only interfere in any activity which is unauthorised or impermissible in terms of the laws. It was suggested that all that was tried was to have an amicable settlement. In the case in hand, it was not feasible for the police to attempt amicable settlement in a litigation pending before the High Court. If the parties to the RSAs are interested in an amicable settlement, it WPC.28761/10 3 would be up to them to move the High Court for generation of appropriate ADR proceedings in terms of Section 89 C.P.C. Hence, this writ petition is ordered directing that apart from ensuring that no act of waste is committed in the property in question, the police officers shall keep their hands off from the litigations touching this temple, however, that any complaint regarding the commission of any cognizable offence, including any specific instances of violation of Ext.P3 order, will be promptly attended to, but take due care and caution because the place is essentially one related to version. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.01/10.