IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15227 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUBAIR.C.H, S/O.K.P. ABDUL REHIMAN, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAMMDATH HOUSE, PATTLAM, PARAPPA.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VELLARIKUNDU POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KASARAGOD. 3. C.H. ABDUL RAZAK, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K.P. ABDUL REHIMAN, RESIDING AT KAMMADATH HOUSE, PEROLE, PARAPPA.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. C.H. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. K.P. ABDUL REHIMAN, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAMMADATH HOUSE, PEROLE HOUSE, PARAPPA.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. DR.C.H. MOHAMMED, S/O. K.P. ABDUL REHIMAN, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAMMADATH HOUSE, PEROLE, PARAPPA.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. G.P. SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1&R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 15227 of 2010 C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to render sufficient police protection to the life of the petitioner as against respondents 3 to 6. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner, along with his wife and three children, is residing in the property in R.S.No. 69/1 of Parappa Village, Hosdurg Taluk. The aforesaid property belongs to the petitioner and his deceased sister. Respondents 3 to 6 are the petitioner's brothers. His father is aged 90 years, who is residing with his second wife and children. Petitioner's father held properties, which he had settled in favour of all the children, including respondents 3 to 5. However, some properties remain in the possession of the father and the same is managed by the petitioner as desired by his father. The respondents intended to grab the properties held by W.P.(C).No. 15227 of 2010 2 the father. The petitioner filed Exts.P1 and P2 complaints before respondents 1 and 2. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that essentially the matter relates to the disputed properties. We take note of the pleadings in the petition and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. We are of the view that this is not a fit case to entertain Article 226 of the Constitution. It is for the petitioner, if so advised, to approach the competent civil court and seek appropriate reliefs. However, we make it clear that if the petitioner complains of commission of any cognizable offence, action shall be taken by the first respondent in accordance with law. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm