Dismissed

Sivaji Jaganathan v. the Director General of Police

Kerala HC18 Mar 2011WP(C)/1902/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought protection under Article 226 against alleged threats from their father-in-law regarding eviction and personal safety in a property dispute. The Court found no merit in the threat allegations, noting the dispute was purely civil, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with observations that there was no threat to the lives or property of the petitioners.

Sivaji Jaganathan Vs the Director General of Police — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 1902 of 2011(K)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

1. SIVAJI JAGANATHAN, SIVAJI SEPHIRE FLATS JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

2. CHITRA SIVAJI, SIVAJI SEPHIRE FLATS JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,- 695 001.

¶14

2. THE COMMISSIONR OF POLICE, COMMISSIONERATE,THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶15

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF POLICE SHANGHUMMUKHAM, NEAR AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶16

4. SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, STATUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 002

¶17

5. DR.VELAYUDHAN, G.G.HOSPITAL, MURINJIJAPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.

¶18

6. SABIN BABU, GRA 177, GOWREESAPATTAM ROAD, PATTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 010.

¶19

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.CHARISMA R5 BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN, SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI. R6 BY SRI.R.SRINATH, SRI.VIPIN VARGHESE.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

tss

¶22

W.P.(C) NO.1902/2011

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶25

P1:- COPY OF THE LEASE DEED.

¶26

P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

NIL:-

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶33

W.P(C) NO:1902 OF 2011 K

¶34

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18^th March, 2011.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Basant, J.

¶37

The petitioners, spouses have come before this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 4, police officials, to afford protection to the petitioners for their lives and property against alleged culpable, contumacious and violent acts on the part of their father/fatherin-law, the fifth respondent and his associate the sixth respondent.

¶38

Petitioners are the son-in-law and daughter respectively of the fifth respondent. They are running a bar hotel in a property with building belonging to the fifth respondent. They are tenants in possession of the building. According to them fifth respondent has a strained relationship with his family. He is residing away from the family. They even alleged that he is having illicit relationship with some para medical personnel. The fifth respondent is a doctor by profession. He is aged more than 80 years. The petitioners apprehend that the fifth

¶39

¶40

WPC 1902/2011

¶41

respondent may take law into his hands and attempt to forcibly throw the petitioners out of possession. They further apprehend that the fifth respondent may cause harm to the life and person of the petitioners. The sixth respondent allegedly an associate of the fifth respondent is acting in collusion with the fifth respondent and the petitioners apprehend threat from respondents 5 and 6 together acting in collusion.

¶42

Respondents 5 and 6 have entered appearance through counsel. They completely deny the allegations raised against them. According to the fifth respondent it is true that he is the owner of the building which is in the possession of the petitioners as tenants. They are running a hotel also there. The building is in a dilapidated condition and notice for eviction has been issued on the ground that the building requires reconstruction and development. Infuriated by the action taken by the fifth respondent and to steal a march over the fifth respondent in such litigation this petition with false allegations have been raised. According to the fifth respondent he is dissatisfied with the conduct and behaviour of the first

¶43

¶44

WPC 1902/2011

¶45

petitioner. He has therefore executed a will bequeathing his property including the property in the occupation of the petitioners for charitable purposes. It is infuriated by such conduct of the fifth respondent that false allegations are raised and this vexatious proceedings are initiated against respondents 5 and 6. The allegation against the sixth respondent is cruel and unkind. He is a chartered accountant and he has a purely professional relationship with the fifth respondent. His name has been unnecessarily dragged into the controversy, contends learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6.

¶46

Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submits that fifth respondent has no intention whatsoever to cause any harm to the person or lives of the petitioners. He has no intention to forcibly take over possession of the property in the occupation. The fifth respondent shall initiate legal steps to secure eviction of the petitioners from the property. The undertaking of respondents 5 and 6 may be recorded and these proceedings may be closed as unnecessary and vexatious, submits counsel.

¶47

We turned to the learned Govt. Pleader for submissions.

¶48

WPC 1902/2011 4

¶49

The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instruction from the concerned police officials submits that in the perception of the police officials, petitioners face no threat to their life and property from respondents 5 and 6. There is a civil dispute between the parties. The fifth respondent intends to initiate eviction proceedings. He has bequeathed the property to some others dissatisfied with the petitioners. At any rate the police do not perceive any threat to the life, person or property of the petitioners.

¶50

It is conceded that the petitioners have initiated civil proceedings and the said proceedings has now been closed accepting the undertaking of the fifth respondent that he shall not take any steps to forcibly throw the petitioners out of possession of the building in occupation. That suit was dismissed consequent to that undertaking of the fifth respondent submits the learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

¶51

We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that this is not a fit case where our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.226 can or need be invoked

¶52

WPC 1902/2011

¶53

¶54

and any directions issued. We do not find any merit in the contention that the petitioners face any threat to their lives, person or property from respondents 5 and 6.

¶55

This petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations.

¶56

R.BASANT Judge

¶57

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶58

¶59

WPC 1902/2011 6

Sivaji Jaganathan v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivaji Jaganathan v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jacob Taliat Vs the Marine Products Exports Development

Joby Vs Marykutty Joseph

Leela Raghavan Vs State of Kerala

Wilson Janis Vs State of Kerala and 4 Others

Sharafudeen Vs the Supdt.of Police and Others

John Philip Vs the Superintendent of Police