IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17995 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VARKEY, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.DEVASYA, PULIKKAL HOUSE, PIDAVOOR KARA, VARAPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 2. BRIJITHA, W/O.VARKEY, AGED 69 YEARS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, PIDAVOOR KARA, VARAPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL, ALUVA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLURKAD POLICE STATION. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHANICAD POLICE STATION. 5. ITTAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN, PUNNAKKOTTAYIL HOUSE, INJOOR KARA, VARAPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 6. BABY, S/O.ITTAR, AGED 45 YEARS, PUNNAKKOTTAYIL HOUSE, INJOOR KARA, VARAPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. W.P.(C) No.17995 of 2009 : 2 : 7. YACOB, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.ITTAR, AGED 47 YEARS, PUNNAKKOTTAYIL HOUSE, INJOOR KARA, VARAPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 8. ELDHOSE, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, KOCHERY HOUSE, PIDAVOOR KARA, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 9. SARAHKUTTY, W/O.VARKEY, AGED 50 YEARS, PUNNAKKOTTAYIL HOUSE, PIDAVOOR KARA, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM 10. BIJU, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 27 YEARS, PUNNAKKOTTAYIL HOUSE, PIDAVOOR KARA, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE FOR R5-10 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. R1-R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.17995 of 2009 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE SUMMARY AND DISCHARGE RECORD DATED 27.11.2007 ISSUED BY INDO-AMERICAN HOSPITAL BRAIN & SPINE CENTER TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10.6.2009 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17995 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioners are senior citizens living alone in their house. First petitioner is stated to be bed ridden with paralytic stroke and their children are working abroad. Respondents 6 and 7 are the children of the fifth respondent whose property is situated on the western side of the petitioners' property. When the petitioners' started residing in the new house constructed demolishing the old one, it is said that respondents 5 to 7 are coercing the petitioners to sell their property and also causing threat to their life. There is also an allegation of trespass into the court yard of the petitioners' building and there is also dispute regarding the pathway on the western side of the property. W.P.(C) No.17995 of 2009 2 2. Admittedly, the petitioners and the party respondents have a dispute regarding the pathway on its western side, and that dispute has necessarily to be resolved through the Civil Court. Boundary dispute is not a matter which could be resolved in a police protection writ petition. 3. Party respondents appearing through counsel submits that they are not causing any threat to the life of the petitioners, and some civil suits are also pending in appeal. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents submits that there is no threat as alleged. 4. Petitioners being senior citizens living alone and the first petitioner being bed ridden, it is the neighbours who have to attend to them, in case of any need or help. But the dispute between the parties have led the petitioners to live in an isolated manner which also is an unfortunate situation. Therefore, if there is any threat to peaceful living of the petitioners in their house and if information regarding the same is passed on to the police, the police shall go the spot, enquire into W.P.(C) No.17995 of 2009 3 the same, and if found true, afford necessary protection to the lives of the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.