IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 4019 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- FRANCIS NADAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. JANAMUTHAN NADAR, F.M. NIVAS, EINTTIKKALA, ARAYOOR DESOM,CHENKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DYSP OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARSSALA POLICE STATION. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARSSALA POLICE STATION. 4. UTHAMA PRASAD, S/O. SHARANGADHARA PANICKER, EINTTIKKALA, ARAYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. MOHANAN, S/O. CHELLAYAN, --DO--. 6. RASILLAYAN, S/O...., --DO--. 7. VINCENT, S/O....., --DO--. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN ADV. SRI.SUNNY ZACHARIA FOR R4 TO R7 SRI.VINOJ RAJAN FOR R4 TO R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.4019/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT INOS. 621/97 OF THE II ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DT. 14.9.1999. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS. 689/97 OF I ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DT.D 20.10.2000. P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 26.10.2009. P4:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.D 3.11.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 4019 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner seeks police protection for his life and for his property against what is alleged as the criminal and contumacious acts of respondents 4 to 7. 2. The learned Government Pleader Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran on the basis of the instructions received submits that there is suit and cross suit O.S. No.621/1997 and O.S. No. 689/1997 before the Neyyattinkara Munsiff Court between the petitioner and the party respondents. Apart from that a private complaint was filed by the petitioner against the party respondents before JFMC, Neyyattinkara as C.C. No.26/2010. At the moment, the situation is under control and there is no law and order situation warranting issuance of police protection, so submitted the learned Government Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not agree. WPC.No.4019/2010 2 The counsel submitted that O.S. 621/1997 filed by the petitioner was decreed for declaration of injunction against the party respondents and O.S. No.689/97 filed by the party respondents was dismissed. Even after the decree in favour of the petitioner, the party respondents are every now and then trespassing into the petitioner's property. They even committed theft of building materials which the petitioner had collected in his compound. Unless specific directions are issued to the police, the petitioner will find it extremely difficult to live peacefully. 4. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and noticing that no counter affidavit has been filed by the party respondents, we are of the view that protection directions sought in respect of the property cannot be granted as O.S. No.621/1997 has already been decreed in favour of the petitioner. It is always open to the petitioner to seek enforcement of that decree or to initiate proceedings for disobedience of that decree. If necessary, the learned Munsiff will issue necessary directions to the police officers for enforcement of the decree. 5. Coming to the acts of criminal tresspass allegedly WPC.No.4019/2010 3 perpetrated every now and then, we record the submission of the learned Government Pleader to the effect that at the moment there is no law and order situation. However, we dispose of this writ petition directing the 3rd respondent - Sub Inspector of Police to keep constant vigil over the petitioner as well as the party respondents and their places of residence and ensure that disputes between the petitioner and the party respondents do not give rise to any law and order situation. If complaints are received from the petitioner against the party respondents, prompt action will be taken on the basis of the immediate enquiry to be conducted into such complaints. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk