Disposed

Mammi Haji v. Si of Police,Thirurangadi

Kerala HC10 Aug 2010WP(C)/15874/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached the High Court seeking a direction for adequate police protection against life and property threats arising from alleged forced road widening by the third respondent. The court dealt with the interim protection order and refused to allow amendment regarding Article 19(1)(f).

What did the court decide?

The interim order granting police protection was made absolute. The amendment to include Article 19(1)(f) grounds was not allowed. Other prayers were relegated to the competent court.

Mammi Haji Vs Si of Police,Thirurangadi — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 15874 of 2010(H)

PETITIONERS:

MAMMI HAJI, URANKANDATHIL THADATHIL HOUSE, THENNALA P.O., THARAYIL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.MAMMI HAJI, URANKANDATHIL THADATHIL HOUSE, THENNALA P.O., THARAYIL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIROORANGADI.

¶15

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM.

¶16

ALIKKUTTY, S/O.SEYDALAVI, MANGANNI, THENNALA, THIROORANGADI.

¶17

GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1 &2 ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN FOR R3

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION ( CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 15874 of 2010

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT.P1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P. 24838/08 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA 18.8.08

¶23

EXT.P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM GOVT. TALUK HOSPITAL, TIRURANGADI DT.4.5.10

¶24

EXT,.P3 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF FIR DT.18.4.10

¶25

EXT.P4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.17.5.2010.

¶26

EXT.P5 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH. TRUE PHOTOGRAPH.

¶27

EXT.P6 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.929/58 OF THIROORANGADI SRO.

¶28

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT.28.7.10.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶30

EXT.R3(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES.

¶31

// TRUE COPY//

¶32

K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶33

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 15874 of 2010 H

¶34

¶35

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Joseph, J.

¶38

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioners.

¶39

Briefly the case of the petitioners is as follows. The petitioners are residing in a small house. There is a pathway on the boundary of the property of the petitioners. The third respondent attempted to widen the road using a JCB. The petitioners objected.

¶40

Due to undue influence of the third respondent, the District Panchayat initiated steps to widen the pathway without the consent of the petitioners. Hence they filed a writ petition before this Court and obtained Ext.P1 judgment against the District Panchayat not to widen the road by force.

¶41

W.P.(C).No. 15874 of 2010

¶42

It is stated that the third respondent and his goondas manhandled the second petitioner and he was admitted in the hospital. Ext.P2 is the wound certificate and Ext.P3 is the F.I.R. Ext.P4 is the request submitted by the first petitioner before the first respondent for police protection.

¶43

A counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent producing Ext.R3(a), which is the minutes of the meeting, under which the people of the area decided to surrender land to widen the road.

¶44

The petitioners filed a petition for amending the writ petition to incorporate grounds based on Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Article 19(1)(f) has been deleted by the 44^th Amendment of the Constitution. We are not inclined to allow the application for amendment.

¶45

Essentially the prayer in the writ petition is for police protection for life. We have already passed an interim order granting protection to the lives of the petitioners.

¶46

W.P.(C).No. 15874 of 2010

¶47

We notice that the road was widened apparently by making use of the petitioners' property also. According to the petitioners, it was done by force. According to the respondents the road was widened by consent of the petitioners. This has happened in April, 2010, even before filing of the writ petition.

¶48

In the nature of the allegations of the petitioners and in view of Exts.P2 and P3, we make the interim order absolute. In regard to the other prayers, we relegate the petitioners to approach the competent court/forum invoking appropriate provisions. We make it clear that when the matter comes up before the said court/forum shall decide the matter untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment.

¶49

(K. M. JOSEPH) Judge

¶50

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶51

Mammi Haji v. Si of Police,Thirurangadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mammi Haji v. Si of Police,Thirurangadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajil Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Chandran.N.R Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Sivanandan Vs State of Kerala & 19 Others

M/S.Orma Marbles Vs Dist.Superintendent of Police

R.Jyotheendran Vs State of Kerala

P.Vijayakumari Vs S.P Palakkad