IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7748 of 2011(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOHN MATHEW, AGED 51, S/O.LATE M.M.GEORGE MAVUNILKKUNNATHIL PARATHUNDIYIL HOUSE, KOIPPURAM P.O.,THATTACKADU MURI, KOIPPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY RAVISHANKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.PIN- 689 645 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOIPPURAM.PIN- 691 502 3. MARTIN A.KAZHUVELLIKALAM, S/O.K.C.ANTONY, KAZHUVELLIKALAM VEETTIL,KUMBANAD P.O., THATTAKATTU MURI, KOIPPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.PIN- 689 101 4. JAMALUKUTTY, AGED 50,S/O.THANGALKUNJU SHA MANZILIL VEETTIL,MEMANA MURI, OCHIRA VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK.PIN- 690 518 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)NO.7748/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH ALLEGED PATHWAY. P2 COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN AND PERMIT DATED 28/04/2010. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 25/2/2010. P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DITCH. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.7748 of 2011-N ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 3 and 4 on the other is about the interpretation of an order passed by the civil court. A copy of that order communicated/served on the petitioner is produced as Ext.P3. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the police are unnecessarily poking their nose into the disputes between the parties. The petitioner has very carefully avoided any violation of the order of injunction passed by the civil court. If respondents 3 and 4 have any complaint of violation of the order of injunction by the civil court by the petitioner, they must be left to complain to the civil court. If such a complaint is made, the petitioner will be able to show the civil court that he has not in any manner violated the order of injunction. Apprehending that the petitioner may do that, respondents 3 and 4 have found out the short cut method of influencing and are prevailing upon the police to fetter his rights. The petitioner has to undertake construction/activity within his property. This is being W.P(C) No.7748 of 2011-N 2 obstructed by the police under the influence of respondents 3 and 4. This in short is the grievance of the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that it is true that respondents 3 and 4 had lodged a complaint before the police raising allegations against the petitioner. Respondents 3 and 4 are taking appropriate proceedings before the civil court to complain about the alleged activity/construction by the petitioner. Respondents 3 and 4 shall not now depend upon respondents 1 and 2 police officials for any relief in their favour. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that to avoid any law and order situation on receipt of the complaint of respondents 3 and 4, the police wanted to ascertain from the parties what really was the dispute. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 undertakes that respondents 1 and 2 shall not now intervene in the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3and 4 about the alleged non compliance/violation of Ext.P3 order. 4. In the light of the stand taken by the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4, we are satisfied that no further directions need be issued W.P(C) No.7748 of 2011-N 3 in the matter now. We specifically record that respondents 1 and 2 have undertaken before us that they shall not in any manner interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. Respondents 3 and 4 have undertaken before Court that they shall not depend upon respondents 1 and 2 to redress their grievance about the alleged violation of Ext.P3 order by the petitioner and they shall be approaching the civil court forthwith for relief if any necessary for them. 5. Accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/