IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26103 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- LANDO SUDHEESH.K.P., S/O.K.SATHYANATHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, KARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANTHAKAI P.O., MAHE - 673 310. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHORNUR - 679 121. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, OTTAPALAM - 679 101. 4. NORTH KERALA DIOCESE OF CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND BISHOP, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 121. 5. STANELY PAUL, KANNAMCHATH HOUSE, KALALAYA ROAD, NEAR NANDANAM HOSPITAL, OTTAPALAM - 679 101. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.26103/2010-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ON 17/11/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 16/09/09 FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, VANIAMKULAM. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PERMIT LETTER DT. 22/07/2010 FROM THE FOREST DEPARTMENT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 05/08/2010 SUBMITTED TO THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 10/08/2010 SUBMITTED TO THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Bhavadasan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.26103 of 2010-K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioner contends that he purchased the timber standing in a property belonging to the fourth respondent. He seeks an order of police protection on the premise that the fifth respondent is objecting and obstructing to the removal of the timber which are cut and lying down in the property for more than one year. We issued notice to respondents 4 and 5. The fourth respondent states that the fifth respondent, though filed a suit for injunction and had obtained an interim order initially, had lost that interlocutory application before the court of first instance. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent states that a C.M.Appeal is pending against that order. It is to be noted WPC26103/10 -: 2 :- that the fourth respondent, namely, the alleged owner of the timber and the fifth respondent are before the civil court from 2009. The civil court had passed certain interlocutory orders initially in favour of the fifth respondent and later dismissed that application. That matter is pending in C.M.Appeal. The suit is also pending before the court below. The claim of the petitioner is only one under the fourth respondent. 2.The learned Senior Government Pleader reports on instructions that the rival claimants have created a law and order situation which has turned tense and cases and counter cases have been registered by the police. With the scenario, we do not deem it proper for the writ court to issue any direction for police protection for removal of the timber. Any way, the timber is admittedly lying for more than one year. Under such circumstances, it would only be open to the parties to seek appropriate remedy from the civil WPC26103/10 -: 3 :- court where the suit between respondents 4 and 5 is pending. It is stated that the suit is listed for trial in the special list. Yet, if the parties seek any interim relief, the court below could consider it appropriately without reference to anything stated in this judgment. It would also be open to the fourth respondent to seek the impleadment of the writ petitioner before the civil court where the suit is pending, if it intends to protect the interest of the petitioner also. Without prejudice to contentions of all sides, we dismiss the writ petition as we do not find any ground to issue any writ for granting police protection. However, we clarify that the police will ensure that the law and order situation is appropriately taken care of, in accordance with law. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.Bhavadasan, Sha/0309 Judge.