IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 26876 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.K.SUMA @ SHOSHAAMMA, W/O.YESUDAS, AGED 38 YEARS, THODIYIL VADAKKATHIL, MANGAD VILLAGE, KARIKKODU CHERI, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLUR CIRCLE, KOLLAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 3. MABLE, D/O.SAMUEL, AGED 52, NANAMBUVILA VADAKKETHIL, MANGADU VILLAGE, KARIKKODE CHERI, MANGAD P.O., KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 26876/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. EXT.P2 - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CONCERNED. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R3(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16.6.2008 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANITHA CELL, KOLLAM. EXT.R3(b) – THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.08.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(c) – THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2.9.2008 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S SISTER BEFORE THE KOLLAM CORPORATION. EXT.R3(d) – THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.9.2008 IN IA NO.3988/2008 IN O.S.NO.506/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.R3(e) – THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 26876 OF 2008-Y ----------------------------------------- Dated 29th October, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is constructing a residential building in a small plot of land. She obtained Ext.P1 building permit for the same from the Corporation of Kollam. While so, the 3rd respondent, who is an employee of the Wakf Tribunal, is causing obstruction to the construction of the building. So, the petitioner filed O.S.No.506/2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Kollam, seeking an injunction against the 3rd respondent. The petitioner submits, the 3rd respondent is taking advantage of her position as a court staff. She is interfering with the due course of justice by blocking the sending up of the petitions filed by the petitioner in that suit to the Bench. Aggrieved by that, she has preferred Ext.P2 representation before the Registrar General of this Court, complaining about the above conduct of the 3rd respondent. WPC 26876/08 2 Now, the 3rd respondent and her henchmen are trying to trespass into her residential building. They are also compelling the petitioner to withdraw the petitions filed by her before the various authorities by threat and coercion. So, she moved the police seeking necessary protection by filing Ext.P3 petition. Thereafter, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, denying all the allegations of the petitioner. She submits that she had a right of way through the property in which the petitioner proposes to construct a building, according to Ext.P1 permit. If the building is permitted to be constructed, her right of way through the said property will be lost. So, on the motion of the 3rd respondent, the Munsiff's Court, Kollam has passed Ext.R3(d) order, restraining the petitioner herein from effecting any change to the plaint schedule property. In view of the said order of the civil court, it is submitted, the petitioner could not make any construction in it. If she does, the same will result in violation of the civil court's order. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent has already moved the Corporation to cancel Ext.P1 permit, WPC 26876/08 3 as the same was obtained, suppressing the existence of a pathway through the property, used by her. Based on the said motion, the Corporation has taken steps to cancel the permit. In view of the above position, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, denying the averments in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent. She has produced Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government, staying the notice issued by the Town Planning Officer of the Corporation, proposing to cancel Ext.P1 permit. 4. Having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties and also Ext.R3(d) order of the civil court, we feel that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. The civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent has to be resolved by the competent civil court. The petitioner, if she succeeds in getting orders from the civil court, can move that court for police protection also, to enforce that order. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent along with others have trespassed into her residential building and threatened her. Against that the police have WPC 26876/08 4 not taken any action. If that be so, the petitioner can move the superior police officers or the Judicial Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [2008(1) KLT 724 (SC)], this Court cannot issue any direction to the police to register or investigate any crime. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. But, this will not affect the powers of the police to take action, if any cognizable offences are reported to them. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/