Disposed

Shyamala v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Nov 2010WP(C)/26265/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought police protection from neighbors alleged to be involved in illegal mining and threatening their life/assets. Noting a counter-affidavit alleging crime against petitioners and counsel submissions denying threats, the Court disposed of the petition, directing civil courts to adjudicate the substantive dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Civil forum to decide the matter untrammeled by this judgment.

Shyamala Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 26265 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

---------------------

¶8

1. SHYAMALA, D/O.CHELLAMMA,AGED 65, THOPPIL VEEDU,THIRUPURAM, P.O NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. MADHU,S/O.SHYAMALA, THOPPIL VEEDU,THIRUPURAM, P.O NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3. VENU,SHYAMALA, THOPPIL VEEDU,THIRUPURAM, P.O NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.VINOD J.DEV, SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV.

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

------------------------

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶15

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POOVAR,POOVAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 006.

¶16

3. CHIKKU,S/O.CHELLAKKUTTAN,VENMIZHAVU, THIRUPURAM P.O,NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 121.

¶17

4. KRISHNAN KUTTY,S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR, CHOOZHARAKKAVU THOPPU,THIRUPURAM P.O, NEYYATINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 121.

¶18

W.P.(C). NO.26265/2010-G:

¶19

5. RAVI,S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR, KULATHARA VEEDU,THIRUPURAM P.O, NEYYATINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121.

¶20

6. JOSE,S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR, CHOOZHARAKKAVU THOPPU,THIRUPURAM P.O, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121.

¶21

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA, R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C). NO.26265/2010-G:

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT:

¶26

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 12/08/2010 BEFORE THE R.2.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:

¶28

EXT.R4: COPY OF THE FIR NO.333/2010 OF THE POOVAR POLICE STATION.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

**K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.26265 of 2010

¶33

Dated this the 18^th day of November 2010

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

K.M.JOSEPH,J

¶36

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking police protection to their life and property against respondents 3 to 6 or anybody claiming under him. There is also reference to Ext.P1.

¶37

Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:

¶38

Petitioners and respondents 3 to 6 are neighbours. Respondents 3 to 6 have business in illegal mining of sand. They are mining sand adjacent to the property of the petitioners. Their intention is to take possession of the property of the petitioners and expand their business. There are civil disputes pending between the petitioners and respondents 3 to 6. It is alleged that they have trespassed into the property of the petitioners and threatened that if the property is not delivered, they will eliminate the petitioners.

¶39

Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 6 wherein it is inter alia stated as follows: It is stated that they

¶40

are not attempting to trespass into the property of the petitioners and will not make any waste to their property. The

¶41

¶42

W.P.C.No.26265 of 2010

¶43

allegation in paragraph 4 in the writ petition is denied. It is stated that petitioners 2 and 3 had manhandled the father of the 3^rd respondent (in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as petitioners 1 and 2) and the police had registered a crime against petitioners 2 and 3.

¶44

We have heard the learned counsel for both parties and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 would submit that they have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioners. We record the same. The learned Government Pleader would also submit that in fact, a case was registered against petitioners 2 and 3 and the case of threat against the petitioners is not correct.

¶45

In such circumstances, recording the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 that they will not threaten the petitioners, we dispose of the writ petition. If the matter comes before any civil court/forum, the civil court/forum will decide the matter untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment.

¶46

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶47

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge

¶48

W.P.C.No.26265 of 2010 3

¶49

W.P.C.No.26265 of 2010 4

¶50

¶51

W.P.C.No.26265 of 2010

¶52

K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

¶53

.No. of 200

¶54

ORDER/JUDGMENT

¶55

30/082010

Shyamala v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamala v. State of Kerala

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

Preethi Jojo Vs Sub Inspector and Others

Dr.Khevna Ravisankar Pujari Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Vijayalakshmi Vs Superintendent of Police,Malappuram

State of Kerala Vs Poyili Leela

Pallipurath Musthafa Moosa Vs K.S.E.B by Its Secretary

Subhashini.J. Vs District Superintendent of Police