IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).NO. 17432 OF 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- PRASANNAKUMARI, W/O. SASIDHARAN, AMBAHI HOUSE, PULAYANARKOTTA, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. KAUSALYA, D/O. PACHI, MUDUMBIL PANAYIL VEEDU, NEAR KARIMAMKULAM TEMPLE, NETHAJI ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU, VATTIYOORKAVU.P.O, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THANKAPPAN, MUDUMBIL PANAYIL VEEDU, NEAR KARIMAMKULAM TEMPLE, NETHAJI ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU, VATTIYOORKAVU.P.O, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SOBHA, D/O. KAUSALYA, MUDUMBIL PANAYIL VEEDU, NEAR KARIMAMKULAM TEMPLE, NETHAJI ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU, VATTIYOORKAVU.P.O, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CR K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.17432 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The point that arises for decision in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to get police protection from this Court for enforcing the interim order of a civil court. This is one of those several cases filed before this Court, complaining that the police did not take any remedial action, though violation of the injunction order passed by the civil court was brought to their notice. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs: (i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th respondent to comply with Exhibit P2 order and (the) order on Exhibit P4 and accordingly give protection to the petitioner to take yield from her own property. (ii) To allow the petitioner to pluck coconuts and to take other yields from her property. The petitioner is the owner of about 5 Ares of land in survey No.1126 W.P.(C)No.17432/08 -2- of Cheruvaickal Village, purchased as per sale deed No.3433/82 of Pattom Sub Registrar's Office. When respondents 1 to 3 tried to cut open a pathway through that property, the petitioner filed O.S.No.596/08 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The said court passed Exhibit P2 interim order on 27.3.2008, restraining the defendants from constructing any new pathway through the plaint schedule property by destroying the compound wall on the northern and southern side of the said property. But, the defendants in the suit, who are respondents 1 to 3 herein are acting in violation of the said injunction order. Therefore, the petitioner, instead of moving that court, moved the Revenue Divisional Officer, by filing Exhibit P4 petition. The petitioner claims, on the said petition, the Revenue Divisional Officer has directed the police to grant protection to her. Alleging that the police are not taking any effective action, this writ petition is filed, seeking the above quoted reliefs. 3. If Exhibit P2 injunction order is violated, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the court which passed that order. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has failed to point out under what provision, Exhibit P4 petition has been filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, complaining about the violation of the injunction order by respondents 1 to 3. We are of the view that the Revenue Divisional Officer has got no jurisdiction to consider the said petition. We are also of the view that the police have no business to meddle in the dispute concerning violation of the W.P.(C)No.17432/08 -3- injunction order passed by a civil court. There is no statutory provision either in the Police Act or the Criminal Procedure Code, authorising the police to receive a petition alleging violation of the order of a civil court, consider it and take remedial action, if violation of the order is found. If there is no duty cast on the police in this regard, this Court cannot issue any writ of mandamus to the police as prayed for by the petitioner. The police can interfere in these matters, if only they are directed by the civil court. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn