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 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31397 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- STEPHEN GEEVARGHESE, PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, VELLOOR PO, PAMPADY VILLAGE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. S.I.OF POLICE, THRIKODITHANAM POLICE STATION. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. LILLYKUTTY JACOB,CHELANILKKUNNATHIL HOUSE, ELANTHOOR PO,KOZHENCHERY,PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. ABRAHAM RAJAN MATHEWS RAJAN COTTAGE, AANJILITHANAM MURI AANJILITHANAM PO, MALLAPPALLY TALUK KUNNATHANAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) No.31397 of 2010-Y ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “i). to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective protection to the life of the petitioner from any threat by the 4th respondent and her henchmen.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner entered into an agreement with the 5th respondent on 23.4.2009 for slaughtering the rubber trees in the property belonging to 5th respondent. The 4th respondent filed a suit against the 5th respondent for preventing the 5th respondent from transferring the scheduled property to any other person and making any improvements therein. The said suit is pending before the Munsiff Court, Changanasserry. The Munsiff Court has passed Ext.P3 interim order restraining the 5th respondent from transferring the scheduled property and also from making any improvements therein. Petitioner executed the agreement in the year 2009 and commenced slaughtering with effect from 28.9.2009 and he had invested huge amounts by availing loans from banks. Petitioner has WPC 31397/2010 -2- right to cut and remove the trees vide Ext.P1 agreement. Even at the time of filing the plaint, the 4th respondent is well aware of the fact that there existed an agreement between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. Petitioner is no way connected with the suit. There is no prohibitory order against the petitioner by any civil Court. Petitioner filed a detailed complaint as Ext.P4. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the nature of the allegations made, we do not think that we need exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction. We feel that petitioner has other adequate remedies in the matter. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the competent forum seeking such reliefs as he is advised to seek, the writ petition is disposed of. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS