Petitioner sought police protection and action against respondents in a property dispute. The Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner is no longer in possession of the building and civil/criminal remedies are appropriate for returning articles.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 13944 of 2010(P) --------------------------
PETITIONER(S): ---------------
PRABHAVATHY, "USHUS", T.C.NO.51/2152, LAL LANE, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S): ---------------
R1, 2 & 6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.T.K. VIPIN DAS ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER FOR R4-5
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXTS:
RESPONDENTS' EXTS:
/TRUE COPY/
K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction commanding and compelling the first respondent to afford adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner, her husband and girl inmates from the hands of respondents 2 to 5 enabling them to reside peacefully.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction commanding the first respondent to take action on Ext.P2 and order action against respondents 2 and 3 for the illegal act of threatening and abusing the petitioner.
W.P.(C).No. 13944 of 2010
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction commanding the first respondent to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner and her family members and girl inmates from the hands of the 2nd respondent and his policemen and also to ensure that the petitioner and her family members and girl students are not harassed, threatened, abused or manhandled by the 2nd respondent and his policemen.”
conducting a paying guest house situated on the opposite side of her residence. Research students are staying in the house. The said property was purchased by the 4th respondent. Petitioner's husband and the third respondents are friends. When the third respondent requested for some money, petitioner's husband gave Rs.7,22,000/- as loan to the third respondent and the third respondent executed a Promissory Note in favour of the petitioner's husband. The third respondent also entrusted possession of the building bearing No.T.C.51/2172 and the adjoining incomplete building with a
3
W.P.(C).No. 13944 of 2010
condition that the petitioner's husband need not pay any rent for the building and also agreed that as and when the amount of Rs.7,22,000/is paid, the petitioner's husband and the petitioner, who are in legal possession of the building, shall give vacant possession of the building.
the second respondent, but there is no response.
4
W.P.(C).No. 13944 of 2010
the FIR in Crime No.388 of 2010. It is seen from Ext.R4(d) that the
deponent and his family are in possession of the house. The 4th respondent had purchased 10 cents and two buildings for Rs.20 lakhs. He had availed a loan of Rs.15 lakhs from ICICI bank to purchase the property. This respondent denies that he borrowed Rs.7,22,000/from the petitioner's husband and the execution of Promissory Note. It is stated that since the petitioner's husband is residing in a building just opposite to his newly purchased house, a duplicate key of the house was given to him to take care of the property. He was not authorised to let out the building or to conduct any paying guest business.
5
W.P.(C).No. 13944 of 2010
complete. The report is not brought on record. It is further submitted that various objects have been taken away from the building. They may be ordered to be returned to the petitioner, he submits.
W.P.(C).No. 13944 of 2010
6
we would think that the interim order has been complied with. As regards returning of the articles allegedly belonging to the petitioner in the building is concerned, we are of the view that it is for the petitioner
to work out her remedies before appropriate competent forum.
her remedies before appropriate competent forum, we dispose of the Writ Petition.
(K. M. JOSEPH) Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge
tm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should impose an affirmative duty on the police to protect the petitioner regarding a contractual/property dispute.
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition where the petitioner no longer has possession of the property in dispute.
Whether the petitioner can seek return of stolen articles via the writ court or a competent civil/criminal forum.
PRABHAVATHY
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY
SELF
LATHIKA KUMARI
K.M. JOSEPH
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
