Dismissed

K.Girija Kumari v. Commissioner of Police

Kerala HC9 Jun 2011WP(C)/14254/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition complaining of police harassment during a civil construction dispute. The court held that unless orders from the civil court or revenue officials directing police action are produced, the police have no intention to interfere in civil disputes between private parties. No specific directions were found necessary.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition is dismissed and no specific directions are issued as no valid order from civil or revenue authorities was produced.

K.Girija Kumari Vs Commissioner of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 14254 of 2011(F) -------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

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

¶7

K.GIRIJA KUMARI, D/O.KAMALAMMA, AGED 49 YEARS, KARTHIKA, VAZHOTTUKONAM, KODUNGANNUR P.O., VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.

¶12

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 601.

¶13

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 013.

¶14

4. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.

¶15

tss

¶16

W.P.(C) NO.14254/2011

¶17

5. RENJANA P.S., D/O.PADMA KUMARI, AGED 29, S.S.BHAVAN, AJAYAPURAM, PANAVOOR VILLAGE, PANAYAM P.O. NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 541.

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR R5 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR, SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN. SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI, SRI.I.J.AUGUSTINE, SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN, SRI.RAFEEK. V.K., SRI.SEBIN THOMAS, SRI.M.PRAVEEN KUMAR.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

tss

¶21

W.P.(C) NO.14254/2011

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

P1:- COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED. NO.2961/10 DTD. 19.10.10. P2:- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 4.3.09 WITH APROVED PLAN.

¶25

P3:- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND APPROVED PLAN DTD. 27.12.10.

¶26

P4:- COPY OF THE PLAINT DT. 31.3.2011 IN OS.559/11 MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶27

P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION DTD. 1.4.2011 IN IA. 2852/2011 IN OS. 559/2011 DT.D 1.4.2011 OF M.C.TRIVANDRUM.

¶28

R5(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ALONG WITH THE REPORT OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR AND SKETCH PREPARED BY THE TLAUK SURVEYOR.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶33

W.P.(C).NO.14254 OF 2011

¶34

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2011.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Basant, J:

¶37

The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the harassment by the police. She seeks directions under Article 226 to abate such vexation and harassment. According to the petitioner, she has undertaken construction of a residential building in the property belonging to her exclusively. She is constructing the building in terms of the licence issued, in accordance with law, by the 4^th respondent - Corporation. According to her, the 5^th respondent has no right to obstruct the construction of the building. The 5^th respondent had gone before the civil court complaining about the construction undertaken by the petitioner. The civil court has directed that the construction shall be strictly in accordance with the plan issued by the Corporation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 5^th respondent is illegally obstructing the construction and that the police officials succumbing to the influence of the 5^th respondent

¶38

W.P.(C).NO.14254 OF 2011 : 2 :

¶39

are interfering in the construction.

¶40

The 5^th respondent has entered appearance. The learned counsel submits that, as a matter of fact, there is violation of the order of injunction passed by the civil court. The construction is being undertaken contrary to the building permit by trespassing into a public pathway. If that be so, we are of the opinion that it is certainly for the 5^th respondent to complain to the civil court which passed the order. Admittedly, that has not been done.

¶41

The 5^th respondent has a further case that the Revenue Officials have already found out that the petitioner has trespassed into the public pathway. Action is being taken by the Revenue Officials against such trespass into the pathway. No order of the Revenue Officials has been produced. It is indicated that the Revenue Officials have contemplated action. Needless to say that, if any order were passed by the Revenue Officials in accordance with law, the petitioner will have to abide by such directions. No such orders have so far been passed. There is no dispute on that aspect.

¶42

W.P.(C).NO.14254 OF 2011

¶43

: 3 :

¶44

The learned senior counsel has appeared for the

¶45

4^th respondent - Corporation. The learned senior counsel for the 4^th respondent submits that the 4^th respondent is not satisfied that there is violation of the conditions of permit. Necessary action shall be taken against the petitioner if there be any violation of the conditions of the permit. If there be any such violation, appropriate action shall be taken by the 4^th respondent, undertakes the learned senior counsel. At the moment no action is contemplated against the petitioner, submits the senior counsel.

¶46

We turned to the Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that police have no intention to interfere in the civil disputes between the parties. The 5^th respondent has lodged a complaint before the police that there has been violation of the order of the civil court. When the enquiry was conducted in that context, the police have also come to note that the Revenue Officials are contemplating action against the petitioner. The police shall not interfere in the

¶47

W.P.(C).NO.14254 OF 2011 : 4 :

¶48

civil disputes between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent, but if there be any valid orders of the civil court or the Revenue Officials directing the police to take action, option of the police to take action may not be fettered. Otherwise police have no intention to interfere with the disputes between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent.

¶49

We have considered all the relevant inputs. If the 5^th respondent has a grievance of violation of the order of the civil court, it is certainly for the 5^th respondent to raise appropriate grievance before the civil court and seek further directions. Similarly, if the Revenue Officials do initiate any proceedings and pass any valid orders against the petitioner, the police be certainly at liberty to comply with such specific directions, if any, issued to the police in accordance with law. Otherwise, we do not find any reason for the police to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent.

¶50

We are accepting the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police shall not interfere in the civil disputes between the parties. Hence, we do not find it

¶51

W.P.(C).NO.14254 OF 2011

¶52

: 5 :

¶53

necessary to issue any further specific directions. We make it clear that we have no intention to express any opinion on the tenability of the orders which the appropriate officials may pass under the relevant Statutes regarding the alleged trespass into public pathway.

¶54

Recording the above submissions of the learned Government Pleader and subject to the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶55

Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶56

Sd/=

¶57

R. BASANT, JUDGE.

¶58

Sd/=

¶59

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.

¶60

cl /true copy/

¶61

P.S. to Judge.

K.Girija Kumari v. Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Girija Kumari v. Commissioner 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

Board of Trustees Port of Cochin Vs Jaisu Shipping Company Private Ltd. and

Rev.Fr.Nicholas Pallivathukkal Vs State of Kerala

Surendran Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Arun Ramachandran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Jose Kolencherry Vs the Director General of Police

Vijayakumari Vs Superintendent of Police