IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 28TH DECEMBER 2010 / 7TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38572 of 2010(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SOORAJ GEMINI, TC.IX/144(60) KOWDIAR MANOR, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695003 2. PARVATHY SONIA SOORAJ, W/O.SOORAJ GEMINI TC.IX/144(60) KOWDIAR MANOR, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695003 3. GAURI PARVATHY SOORAJ AGED 4 1/2 YEARS,D/O.SOORAJ GEMINI, REP.BY HER FATHER,SOORAJ GEMINI, TC.IX/144(60) KOWDIAR MANOR, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RANGE, NEAR NANDAVANAM ARMED RESERVE POLICE CAMP NANADAVANAM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE POLICE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. SREELATHA VALIATHAN, D/O.SOUMINI AMMA SANTHAKUMAR, FLAT 4G, KOWDIAR MANOR, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695003 2/- tss 2/- W.P(C) NO.38572/2010 4. KOWDIAR MANOR OWNERS ASSOCIATION, TC.23/1910,KOWDIAR MANOR, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 REP.BY THE PRESIDENT 5. K.RAVINDRAN NAIR, FLAT NO.9E,KOWDIAR,JAWAHAR NAGAR,TRIVANDRUM-695003 6. RAMACAHNDRAN NAIR, MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE, KOWDIAR MANOR,JAWAHAR NAGAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695003 7. PARAMASIVAM LAUNDRY & IRONING SERVICE PROVIDER, KOWDIAR MANOR,JAWAHAR NAGAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695003 R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.38572/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE RENT DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE IST PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 1.8.06. P2:- COPY OF THE RENT DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE IST PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 1.10.08. P3:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 360/2009 N THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 19.2.09. P4:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 363/09 FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 19.2.09. P5:- COPY OF THE INTEIRM ORDER IN IA. 1868/09 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.D 6.3.09. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. 1868/09 IN OS. 360/09 PASSED BY THE IIND ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 4.4.09. P7:- COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DT.D 20.3.09. P8:- COPY OF THE MAHAZAR FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DTD. 12.3.09. P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA. NO 34/09 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 18.6.09. P10:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS. 360/09 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENTD TD. 26.8.09. P11:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS. 363/09 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 18.9.09. P12:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SIT RESPONDENT DTD. 9.12.2010. P13:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 8.12.2010. P14:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE CLURT IN WPC. 37044/2010 DTD. 17.12.2010. P15:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON 14.12.2010. 2/- 2/- W.P.(C) NO.38572/2010 P16:- COPY OF THE ACCIDENT REGISTER CUM WOUND CERTIFICATE DT. 15.12.2010 ISSUED FROM THE GENERAL HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM. P17:- COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION GIVEN BY DR. CLEETUS, MEDICAL OFFICER AT THE CASUALTY FROM THE GENERAL HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM. P18:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 21.12.2010. P19:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 21.12.2010. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & M.L.Joseph Francis, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.38572 of 2010-V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of December, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. The third petitioner is their 4 ½ years' old daughter. According to the petitioners, they are in occupation of an apartment owned by the third respondent. The learned counsel for the third respondent states that the first petitioner has obtained an order of temporary injunction against the third respondent. With that, we notice that there cannot be any objection from the third respondent for the petitioners occupying the apartment. The learned counsel for the third respondent is, in our view, quite justified in stating that the third respondent has no intention to forcibly WPC38572/10 -: 2 :- evict the petitioners or prevent their entry into the apartment. Obviously, we need not go into any disputes between the petitioners and the third respondent, as of now, that is pending in the civil court. This is why we proceeded to dispose of this writ petition without awaiting any further pleadings to be brought on record. 2.The learned counsel for the third respondent, however, states that the first petitioner is essentially a trouble shooter and has become a menace for the occupants of the apartments in the building which is an apartment complex. The learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that there are different allegations against the conduct of the first petitioner, including physical abuse, assault etc. He says that there are also allegations where the victims are stated to be children. Even if there are such allegations, we are clear in our mind that it is not the local laundry man or any ironing service provider or maintenance employee to take care of WPC38572/10 -: 3 :- such situations. Any allegations against the petitioners, in particular, the first petitioner, will have to be looked into by the police in accordance with law. To enable this process, we direct the first petitioner to appear before the appropriate police officer who may issue summons for such appearance in connection with any criminal complaint. This direction given by us is only in furtherance of the terms of Ext.P14. The jurisdictional station house officer will ensure that the petitioners are not visited with any violation of laws at the hands of any local persons and any complaint by the petitioners or any among the petitioners in this regard, including if any already pending, will be looked into and appropriate action taken to provide necessary security. We also record the submission on behalf of the petitioners that from their side, they would not create any law and order problem. We further clarify that any court before which WPC38572/10 -: 4 :- any litigation would be pending between the parties would decide them untrammelled by anything stated in this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. M.L.Joseph Francis, Judge. Sha/2812