IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3312 of 2011(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PADMANABHAN, AGED 81 YEAS, S/O.ELAYAKUTTY, RESIDING AT PUTHUSSERY VEEDU, MADATHIL KARAZHMA P.O., OCHIRA. 2. R.SUSHEELAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, ASANTAYYATHU, MADATHIL KARAZHMA., OCHIRA. 3. B.S.VINOD, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.BAHULEYAN, BINU BHAVANAM, MADATHIL KARAZHMA, OCHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, QUILON. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 518. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OCHIRA- 690526. 4. PRASAD ALIAS SIVAPRASAD, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PRASANNA BHAVANAM, KZHAKKANAL P.O KRISHNAPURAM, QUILON DISTRICT, PIN - 690 533. 5. PRATHAPAN, ALIAS PRABHA, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PRASANNA BHAVANAM, KZHAKKANAL P.O KRISHNAPURAM, QUILON DISTRICT, PIN - 690 533. BY G.P. SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3312 of 2011-L ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 - police officials, to afford police protection to the petitioners for the peaceful and unobstructed running of Puthusseril Siva Temple against culpable, contumacious, illegal and violent acts of respondents 4 and 5. 2. The temple in question admittedly belonged to the mother of the 1st petitioner. The mother of the 1st petitioner executed a settlement deed i.e., Ext.P1. The 1st petitioner herein and two other siblings of the 1st petitioner are the beneficiaries of that document. The temple, belonging to the mother of the 1st petitioner, it is stipulated, is to be managed by W.P.(C) No. 3312 of 2011 -: 2 :- the 1st petitioner along with the co-operation of the family members. It is submitted that in Ext.P1 there is no stipulation as to what is to take place after the death of the 1st petitioner. 3. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner, who is, as per the terms of Ext.P1, entitled to manage the property with the co-operation of the family members, has now constituted a Society. The Society is registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary and Scientific Societies Registration Act. Admittedly, respondents 4 and 5 have not given their seal of approval to the constitution of the Society. As per the terms of the constitution and bylaws of the Society, the Society is to manage the temple. Respondents 4 and 5 evidently are raising objections to the management of the temple by the Society. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the office bearers of the Society. It is at this juncture that the petitioners have chosen to come before this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in detail. We have been taken through the relevant documents. We have perused the averments in the petition. It is easy to come to the conclusion that the crux of the dispute is the right of respondents 4 and 5 to object to some one other than the 1st petitioner managing the affairs of the temple. Respondents 4 W.P.(C) No. 3312 of 2011 -: 3 :- and 5 evidently do not accept and approve the formation of the Society and they do not accept the right of the Society to manage the temple. 5. We shall carefully avoid any expression of opinion on the validity of the objections raised by respondents 4 and 5 or the correctness of the action of the 1st petitioner in constituting a Society with members other than the family members to manage the affairs of the Society. We need only mention that this is a civil dispute where the police cannot decide the dispute. That civil dispute must be decided and resolved by initiating appropriate proceedings before the civil court. Whether the recitals in Ext.P1 authorise and justify the constitution of a Society to manage the affairs of the temple during the life time of the 1st petitioner is certainly a question which has to be resolved in appropriate proceedings before the civil court. 6. The police cannot obviously be clothed with power or jurisdiction to decide the civil dispute between the parties. Consequently, this Court cannot direct the police to resolve the dispute and render police aid to one of the contestants. In proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution, we feel that it is beyond the domain of our jurisdiction to resolve such intricate civil dispute between the parties. To sum up, we are satisfied W.P.(C) No. 3312 of 2011 -: 4 :- that no directions can, need or deserve to be issued invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. We have no hesitation to observe that the petitioners must approach the civil court for settlement of the controversy regarding the appropriateness and legality of the constitution of the Society to discharge the duties which the 1st petitioner under Ext.P1 is bound to discharge during his life time with the co-operation of the family members. 7. With the above observations without intending in any manner to express any opinion on the acceptability of the contentions of the petitioners or the tenability of the objections of respondents 4 and 5, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge