IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 491 of 2010(J) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAVY MATHEW, S/O.A.J.MATHEW, CHOWARA BEACH RESORT, CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM. 6. C.V.VARGHESE, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, SOMATHEERAM AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORTS PVT. LTD., CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SUBHASH CHANDRABOSE, OPERATIONS GENERAL MANAGER, SOMATHEERTHAM AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORTS PVT. LTD., CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. -: 2 :- 8. MATHEW KURIAN, PERSONAL OFFICER, SOMATHEERTHAM AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORTS PVT. LTD., CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. BABY MATHEW, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SOMATHEERTHAM AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORTS PVT. LTD., CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW FOR R1-R5 SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER FOR R6 TO 9 SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH FOR R6 TO 9 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.491 of 2010-J ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a direction to grant him police protection. He claims to be the owner of 2.51 Acres of land. Under Ext.P12 deed of licence which he has entered into with the 9th respondent, who is none other than his brother, he has granted the 9th respondent licence to make use of the said premises to undertake constructions and to run a resort there. Ext.P12 licence agreement is valid even now. Parties are supposed to and they do not dispute their obligation to abide by the terms of Ext.P12 licence agreement. In the course of the actual implementation and exercise of rights under Ext.P12, it appears that there are disputes W.P.(C) No.491 of 2010 -: 2 :- between the brothers i.e., the petitioner and the 9th respondent. According to the petitioner, his rights are interfered with and infringed by the 9th respondent and his employees. 2. Instead of going to the civil court to get his disputes with his brother - the 9th respondent, resolved, in accordance with law, the petitioner has taken a short cut and has come to this Court with the prayer that police protection may be afforded to him. For what is the police protection to be afforded? Actually and factually the prayer is that he may be given assistance of the police to enforce Ext.P12 licence agreement in the manner in which he wants to interpret it. The 9th respondent contends that the petitioner is claiming rights which is not justified under or supported by Ext.P12 licence agreement. The 9th respondent further contends that he has already gone before the civil court seeking relief in respect of the exercise, performance and implementation of his rights under Ext.P12. That civil case is pending now. A caveat has been lodged by the petitioner herein before the civil court and no interim orders have been passed so far in that civil proceeding. According to the 9th respondent, to steal a march over the 9th respondent in such civil dispute, which is in the seizin of the civil court, the petitioner has rushed to this Court with this petition. W.P.(C) No.491 of 2010 -: 3 :- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit has been filed, not prior to the presentation of this petition; but only subsequently. 3. Be that as it may, we note that virtually, factually and actually the dispute is one between the petitioner and the 9th respondent about the civil rights of the parties under Ext.P12 licence agreement. We find absolutely no reason for this Court to assume powers of the civil court and issue any directions in the matter as to how the parties would be justified in behaving in the light of Ext.P12 licence agreement. That certainly is a matter which must be agitated before and decided by the civil court. If the parties need or want to seek any interim orders, such interim orders can be sought from the civil court. The mere fact that the rules of procedure may involve some delay in the civil court granting orders is not reckoned by us as a sufficient reason to justify the prayer for invocation of the extraordinary constitutional remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution. This petition filed on 6/1/10 has also come up for hearing only after compliance with procedural stipulations. We do not intend to express any opinion on the rights of the contesting parties under Ext.P12 licence agreement. We need only mention that the parties must resort to the ordinary and W.P.(C) No.491 of 2010 -: 4 :- legitimate remedy which they have under the ordinary laws by approaching the civil court. We find absolutely no extraordinary features in this case or sufficient reasons to justify the invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. 4. With the above observations this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //True Copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(C) No.491 of 2010 -: 5 :-