Court dismissed the petition seeking mandamus for police protection, holding it not appropriate under Article 226 due to lack of credibility of perceived threats. Court reserved its opinion on underlying property rights.
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
MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932
WP(C).No. 14197 of 2010(Y)
PETITIONER(S):
GRACEAMMA THOMAS,VASANTHA BUILDINGS, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA
RESPONDENT(S):
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS.
ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED FOR R2-4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 14197 of 2010(Y)
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12.4.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2.TURE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY AND BUILDING.
EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 7.6.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.R2A. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED.
EXT.R2B.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.4.2010 FILED BEFORE THE S.I. OF POLICE KARAMANA.
EXT.R2C.TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23.4.2010 ISSUED FROM THE COMMISSIONER OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.R2D. PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON 23.4.2010 SHOWING the DEMOLITIO OF BATHROOM.
EXT.R2E. TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 10.6.2009.
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
W.P.(C) No.14197 of 2010-Y
Dated, this the 12th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner seeks the following relief:
“ to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the Ist respondent to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner, enabling her to do the maintenance work with her workers in the building bearing No.TC 50/822-9 and also to complete the compound wall in Sy.No.3541/1-1 of Manacaud Village.”
respondents 2 to 4.
WPC 14197/2010 -2-
to her in the appropriate forum. If there is any threat to the life of the petitioner from respondents 2 to 4 petitioner will be free to approach the police. Further, if the petitioner complains about commission of any cognizable offence by respondents 2 to 4 action shall be taken in accordance with law. We make it very clear that we have not pronounced on the property rights of the parties. The Court/forum before whom any matter comes between the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 shall be free to pronounce in regard to the same untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment.
(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this is an appropriate case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus for police protection.
Whether the court can pronounce on the property rights disputes between the parties in this context.
Gracemamma Thomas
Secretary to the Government of Kerala represented by the Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram
Sridevi
Saraswathy Amma
Komalam
K.M. Joseph
M.L. Joseph Francis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
