IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23281 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.P. RAJEEV PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 43, S/O.LATE K.P. PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, EDATHIRINJI MANA,P.O.ARIPPALAM, (VIA) IRINGALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680688. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM - 695001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TRISHUR DISTRICT - 680003. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRISHUR - 680121. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTOOR POLICE STATION, KATTOOR, TRISHUR DISTRICT - 680702. 5. MOHANAN, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, NADUVATHU PARAMBIL, P.O.ARIPPALAM, TRISHUR DISTRICT 680688. 6. MURALI, S/O. PALAKKAL LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA PALAKKAL HOUSE, P.O. ARIPPALAM, TRISHUR DISTRICT - 680688. 7. REGHUNATHAN.K.R., KAKKULANGRA HOUSE, P.O. ARIPPALAM, TRISHUR DISTRICT - 680688. 8. SREENATH, S/O. MOHAN, KIZHAKKANODAN HOUSE, P.O. ARIPPALAM, TRISHUR DISTRICT-680688 9. VENUGOPAL S/O. KESAVAN NAIR, ILLATH, P.O.PALAKKAL, KALPARAMBA, TRISHUR DISTRICT-680688. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K. CHARISHMA R5 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 23281/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE REGISTERED AS FIR IN CRIME NO.1/2009 DATED 05/01/2009 REGISTERED BY KATTOOR STATION. P2 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 38/2009 DATED 14/02/2009 REGISTERED BY KATTOOR POLICE STATION DATED 14/2/2009. P3 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 43/2009 DATED 16/02/2009 REGISTERED BY KATTOOR POLICE STATION. P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09/03/2009. P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24/01/2010. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/03/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA IN I.A.NO.1221 OF 2010 IN O.S 430/2010. P7 COPY OF THE FIR DATED 19/04/2010 IN CRIME NO.195/2010 REGISTERED BY KATTOOR POLICE STATION. P8 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19/04/2010. P9 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19/03/2010. P10 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/07/2010 THE I.A.NO.1221/2010 IN O.S.NO.430/2010 OF THE ADDL.MUNISFF COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA. P11 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/06/2010 IN CRL.M.P.NO.2441/2010 IN CRL.R.P.NO.63/2010 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR. P12 COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 30/10/2008 IN O.S.NO.23/2009 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, IRINGALAKKUDA. P13 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED NIL O.S.NO.23/2009 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. P14 COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 27/06/2009 IN O.S.NO.792/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. P15 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED NIL IN O.S.NO.792/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. P16 COPY OF THE C.M.P. DATED 20/10/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.23281 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, the workers of the temple, worshipers and property of the temple. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to take all necessary steps so as to ensure that complaints submitted by the petitioner before the authorities is not flouted by respondents 5 to 9 or their men or agents. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. Petitioner is the main Poojari of the very ancient 'Pallippuram Sreekrishna Temple', Vellangalloor. The complaint is that the petitioner, workers of the temple and believers, who W.P.C.No.23281 of 2010 2 come to the temple for worshipping, are facing threat to their life and there is threat to the temple property also from respondents 5 to 9. There is an allegation of trespass by respondents 5 to 9 and demolishion of newly constructed ladies toilet and electric bulbs. There is also an allegation that respondents 5 to 9 brutally manhandled the petitioner and the temple workers and they were hospitalised. Documents are also referred for proving the same. There is reference to a civil suit. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the 5th respondent wherein there is reference to dispute about 40 cents of property and suit O.S.No.430/2010 before Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda. It is stated that Ext.P6 ex parte order obtained by the petitioner was set aside by the court ordering a status quo and the suit is pending consideration. It is also stated that the petitioner attempted to construct an Arch in the public way used by local people causing obstruction and this led to a complaint by the Panchayath before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. There is also reference to the petitioner illegally removing earth from the property of the 7th respondent for filling up water tank. There is also reference to O.S.No.23/09 against construction of Arch as W.P.C.No.23281 of 2010 3 well as trespass and removal of earth. There is further reference to O.S.No.792/09. It is also stated that the petitioner had assaulted one Ratheesh and his wife and crime No.195/2010 of Kattoor police station which is produced as Ext.P7 is pending against the same. 5. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations. Ext.P11 is the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.63/2010 by the Sessions Court, Thrissur. Ext.P12 is a plaint in O.S.No.23/09 and Ext.P13 is a written statement therein. Ext.P14 is a plaint in O.S.No.792/2009 before the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda and Ext.P15 is a written statement therein. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 9 and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for respondents 5 to 9 would submit that they will not cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. They would also submit that they will not obstruct the worshipers from coming to the temple. The learned counsel for the petitioner would press the relief for protection to the workers of the temple. According to the respondents, there are disputes in respect of three constructions in question. Of course, W.P.C.No.23281 of 2010 4 the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the dispute is really not between the petitioner and respondents 5 to 9. The learned Government Pleader would submit that crimes are registered against the petitioner and also against respondents 5 to 9. 7. What we feel is that as far as protection to the workers of the temple is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in the said regard before the competent civil court. As far as protection to property is concerned, we notice that the case of the petitioner is that the temple is situated in 2 acres and 26 cents. He would point out that the disputed property comes to about 40 cents. We notice that an ex parte order of injunction has already been obtained. Subsequently the order of injunction was vacated and instead an order of status quo is passed. 8. In the nature of the case, the writ petition is disposed of recording the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 9 that they will not cause any threat to the life of the petitioner and they will not obstruct any devotees from going to the temple. Besides recording the same, we direct that W.P.C.No.23281 of 2010 5 in case the petitioner complains of any threat to his life or any worshipers are being obstructed by respondents 5 to 9 before the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent will look into the same and if the complaint is found to be genuine, he shall afford protection to the life of the petitioner as against respondents 5 to 9 and also to see that they are not obstructing any worshipers from going to the temple. With regard to the further prayer sought by the petitioner, we will leave it open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.23281 of 2010 6 W.P.C.No.23281 of 2010 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010