Partly allowed

Bhavani Raman v. the Supdt of Police

Kerala HC11 Aug 2010WP(C)/21510/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking police protection and action against harassment by the petitioner's younger son. Court converted interim protection order to absolute order but remitted tree cutting matter to the Additional District Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Additional District Court for tree cutting obstruction; interim order for protection made absolute.

Bhavani Raman Vs the Supdt of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21510 of 2009(G) --------------------------

¶3

PETITIONER(S):

¶4

¶5

BHAVANI RAMAN, POOVAM NILKUNNATHIL VEEDU, PAPPANASSERI VEETTIL, KURUMULLOOR KARA, KANAKKARI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶8

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETTUMANNOOR POLICE STATION, ETTUMANNOOR.

¶10

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUVILANGAD POLICE STATION, KURUVILANGAD.

¶11

P.R.SAJEEVAN, POOVAM NILKUNNATHIL VEEDU, KURUMULLOOR KARA, KURUMULLOOR PO KANNAKARI VILLAGE,

¶12

MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

P.R.PADMANABHAN, POOVAM NILKUNNATHIL VEEDU, KURUMULLOOR KARA, KURUMULLOOR PO KANNAKARI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶14

BINDU P.K., POOVAM NILKUNNATHIL VEEDU, KURUMULLOOR KARA, KURUMULLOOR PO KANNAKARI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1-3 ADV. SRI.P.C.EMMANUEL FOR R4,5 & 6 SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN FOR R4,5 & 6 SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR FOR R4,5,& 6

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MUTATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR, MEENACHAL.

¶19

EXT.P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P3 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXT.P4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P5 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

W.P.(C).No. 21510 of 2009 G

¶26

¶27

Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Joseph, J.

¶30

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶31

i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life and properties of the petitioner and her aged husband against respondents 4 to 6 with immediate effect.

¶32

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate action on the complaints submitted by the petitioner and to proceed against the accused in accordance with law.”

¶33

W.P.(C).No. 21510 of 2009

¶34

Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is a Senior Citizen residing with her aged husband at her tharvad building. She had obtained 3.32 acres of land from her father. She had executed a Gift Deed in favour of her sons and daughters by giving proportionate extent of land and 30 cents of land with the tharvad building was left in her name, where she along with her husband is residing. The 4^th respondent, who is the younger son of the petitioner, is harassing the petitioner demanding the balance property and the tharvad building. He started mental and physical harassment towards the petitioner and her husband. There is threat to the lives of the petitioner and her husband.

¶35

This Court had already passed an interim order directing the third respondent to give protection to the life of the petitioner.

¶36

The petitioner has filed I.A.No.10567 of 2010 producing

¶37

Ext.P6, which is a copy of the order passed by the Additional District Court, Kottayam in A.S.No. 402 of 2009 permitting the petitioner to

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C).No. 21510 of 2009

¶40

cut and remove the trees. The prayer in the I.A. is to afford protection

¶41

to cut and remove the trees with immediate effect.

¶42

We heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

¶43

for the 4^th respondent as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶44

We dispose of the Writ Petition by making the interim order

¶45

absolute. As far as the prayer in I.A.10567 of 2010, we relegate the petitioner to approach the Additional District Court, Kottayam, which has passed Ext.P6 order, for appropriate orders, if there is obstruction from respondents 4 to 6.

¶46

Judge

¶47

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶48

Bhavani Raman v. the Supdt of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavani Raman v. the Supdt of Police

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

Mammi Haji Vs Si of Police,Thirurangadi

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

R.Jyotheendran Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Jofin Vs State of Kerala

M.J.Sebastian Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Varghese Vs the Superintendent of Police Thrissur &