IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27905 of 2011(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.NANDAGOPAL, S/O.PONNUCHAMI, AGED 76 YEARS, 902, NETHAJI STREET, MARAPPALAM, ERODE, TAMILNADU, NOW RESIDING AT BHAGAVATHI NAGAR, PUTHUSSERY P.O., PALAKKAD, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 624. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WALAYAR POLICE STATION, VATTAPPARA, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 624. 4. DR.KANNAPPAN, S/O. O.R.ODIYAPA CHETTIYAR, AGED 58 YEARS, DOOR NO.376, MADURAI ROAD, THENI-625 531. 5. K.SHANTHI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.KANNAPPAN, DOOR NO.376, MADURAI ROAD, THENI-625 531. 6. K.ODIYAPPAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.KANNAPPAN, DOOR NO.376, MADURAI ROAD, THENI, TAMILNADU-625 531. W.P.(C).NO.27905/2011-K: 7. K.ALAMELU, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.KANNAPPAN, DOOR NO.376, MADURAI ROAD, THENI, TAMILNADU -625 531. 8. M.THIYAGARAJAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.T.MEIYAPPAN, NO.11, JAWAHAR MAIN ROAD, N.R.T.NAGAR, THENI-625 531. 9. V.SUNDARAM, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.VENKITACHALAM CHETTIYAR, NO.9, PANDHADI 5TH STREET, MADURAI-625 001. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P.C.IYPE, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL, SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER, R4 BY ADVS. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN, SMT.LATHIKA MOHAN, KUM.K.SARITHA (PALLOM). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.27905/2011-K: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION NO.1134/95 OF SRO ERODE. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVT.OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL ORDER RELATING TO ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER DT.29/3/2006. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF SUPPLEMENTAL DEED NO.535/05 DT.20/10/95. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER DT.15/7/08 IN IA.1738/08 IN OS.283/08 FROM THE ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.13/9/2011 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.302/08 DT.7/10/08. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD.30/9/2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD.10/10/2011 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE TRUST DEED NO.403/BK 4 DTD. 08/06/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.2288/2011 DTD. 11/02/2011. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1740/2008 IN O.S. NO. 283/2008 DTD. 15/06/2010. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 861/2009 IN O.S. NO. 283/2008 DTD. 12/03/2009. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE CODICIL DTD. 19/07/2005. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 27905 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner, Dr.Nandagopal who claims to the Chairman and Managing Trustee of V.N. Public Health and Educational Trust which proposes to establish a medical college near Walayar, seeks police protection for his life and properties and also for the other members of V.N. Public Health and Educational Trust from the illegal attacks and contumacious acts of respondents 4 to 9 and their henchmen. The petitioner also seeks protection for himself and his family members to enter the trust properties and to involve actively in the day to day affairs of the trust. According to the petitioner, even though he is the founder and Managing Trustee of the trust, the situation which presently obtains is that respondents 4 to 9 are in complete control over the affairs of the trust and are not allowing the petitioner even to enter the trust properties and WPC.No.27905/2011 2 much less to involve himself in the management of the properties and institutions of the Trust. According to the petitioner, even though the local police was moved by Exts.P6, P8 and P9 petitions successfully , the police particularly respondents 2 and 3 have not taken any action. The petitioner further submits that the Munsiff Court Palakkad has issued an order of injunction Ext.P5 in favour of the petitioner and this order restrains the party respondents from causing any obstruction to the petitioner and other founder members of the trust in the matter of actively participating in the day to day affairs of the trust. According to the petitioner, in view of pendency of Ext.P5, the police are bound to afford protection . 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the party respondents to which a reply affidavit reiterating the contentions already raised by the petitioner has been filed by the petitioner also. Both the sides have produced various documents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.Radhakrishnan learned counsel for the contesting party respondents and Sri.M.K.Aboobacker learned senior Government WPC.No.27905/2011 3 Pleader addressed us in details. 4. The submission of Mr.Aboobacker was that the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the police are untrue. The complaints submitted by the petitioner was promptly enquired into by the police. The enquiry reveals that the petitioner's allegations are not correct. The petitioner's idea is to pave the ground for filing of petition under Order 39 Rule 2A before the Munsiff Court for alleged violation of Ext.P5 injunction order. Now the situation is under control and there is no law and order situation warranting issuance of protection direction, so submitted the learned Government Pleader. 5. Sri.Radhakrishnan learned counsel for the contesting respondents drew our attention to Ext.R4(d). The learned counsel submits that Ext.R4(d) is a document to which the petitioner is a signatory and the petitioner is guilty of suppressing that most vital document from this court. Under Ext.R4(d) the management of the Trust and its property, particularly financial matters, is exclusively with the 4th respondent Dr. Kannappan. Mr.Radhakrishnan submitted that the 4th respondent and his children are all doctors and they are WPC.No.27905/2011 4 respectable persons. The allegations against them are absolutely unfounded. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, per contra, would submit that the present situation is that the Managing Trustee of the Trust has been virtually ousted despite subsistence of Ext.P5 judgment. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. The question that we are inclined to answer is whether there is warrant for issuance of protection direction sought for. We do notice the subsistence of Ext.P5 injunction order. According to us, if the grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 injunction order is not being enforced, it is for the petitioner to approach the learned Munsiff himself seeking direction for enforcement of the injunction order. It is always open to the learned Munsiff to issue appropriate direction to the police officers concerned in such application for enforcement of the injunction order. 8. Coming to the question of protection for life and limbs sought for by the petitioner for himself and for members of his family, we record all the submissions of the learned Government WPC.No.27905/2011 5 Pleader. In view of the stand taken by the police before us, we may not justified in issuing protection direction straight away in respect of life and limbs of the petitioner. As it is clear to us that the relationship between the petitioner and the party respondents has to be strained to a point of no return, and since we feel that law and order situations are likely to arise, we direct respondents 2 and 3 to keep constant vigil over the parties as well as the properties in dispute and to ensure, by taking appropriate action on the basis of the report received, that the dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents do not give rise to any law and order situation or violence. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk WPC.No.27905/2011 6