Dismissed

Leela Raghavan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Mar 2011WP(C)/2892/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition seeking mandatory directions for police protection against potential violent eviction was dismissed. The Court accepted the undertaking from the State to take action if warranted and found no necessity for further specific directions.

What did the court decide?

No specific police protection directions granted; petition dismissed based on undertaking to take necessary action if warranted.

Leela Raghavan Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | 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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 2892 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

LEELA RAGHAVAN, AGED 53, W/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, KARIPPUMOOLAYIL HOUSE, KOLLAMKUDIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD, BMC.P.O.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.T.A.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.ADEEP ANWAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, O/O.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THRIKKAKKARA.

¶14

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY.

¶15

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKKARA.

¶16

5. THOMAS K.JOY, S/O.KURUVILA, AGED 52 YEARS, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PUTHUPALLY.P.O, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT 14904, DONNA DRIVE, SILVER SPRING, MD 20905, USA.

¶17

W.P.(C) NO.2892/2010

¶18

6. PONNAMMA K.JOY, W/O.THOMAS K.JOY, AGED 51, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PUTHUPALLY.P.O, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT 14904, DONNA DRIVE, SILVER SPRING, MD 20905, USA.

¶19

7. MATHEW VARGHESE, S/O.T.V.VARGHESE, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.11, GOOD EARTH HAMLET, VENNALA.P.O, KOCHI-682 028.

¶20

8. PRADEEP KUMAR.P.P., PULICKAL, LATE PRABHAKARAN, KUMMANODU, PATTIMATTOM.P.O.

¶21

9. ALI, S/O.KHADER PILLAI, CHEMMEKKAT VEEDU, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, THRIKKAKKARA.

¶22

10. THANKAPPAN, VANACHIRAYIL HOUSE, KAKKANADU VILLAGE, THRIKKAKARA.

¶23

11. PONNAPPAN, CHIRAKKAPADY VEEDU, KAKKANADU VILLAGE, THRIKKAKARA.

¶24

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R5 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE, SMT.MANJU RAJAN. R8 BY ADV.SRI.JAISON JOSEPH. R9 TO R11 BY SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SRI.K.M.ANEESH.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

tss

¶27

W.P.(C) NO.2892/2010

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶30

P1:- COPY OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ORIGINAL PETITION NO.555/2007 ON THE FILES OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM PREFERRED BY SMT.GOWRI, MOTHER OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT.

¶31

P2:- COPY OF THE IMPLEADMENT APPLICATION.

¶32

P3:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED THROUGH SANTHOSH KUMAR WHICH WAS DELIVERED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶33

P4:- COPY OF THE REGISTRATION SLIP DTD. 12.11.2009.

¶34

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

NIL:-

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶40

¶41

**W.P(C) No.2892 of 2010-J *******************************

¶42

Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2011

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

BASANT, J.

¶45

Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 2 to 4, police officials under the 1^st respondent State, to afford police protection to them against the culpable, contumacious and violent acts which she apprehends from respondents 5, 6 and 7 as also respondents 7 to 11, who, she perceives, were acting under respondents 5, 6 and 7.

¶46

According to the petitioner, respondents 5, 6 and 7 had initiated proceedings for recovery of possession of property against her, her deceased husband and nephew of her deceased husband. That suit was not resisted. It was ultimately decreed exparte against the petitioner and others.

¶47

According to the petitioner, she had filed this petition at that juncture apprehending that respondents 5, 6 and 7 armed with that decree for recovery of possession may attempt to throw the petitioner out of possession physically by use of force. An

¶48

W.P(C) No.2892 of 2010-J

¶49

¶50

incident which had allegedly taken place confirmed the worst apprehensions in her mind. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition.

¶51

According to the petitioner, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, an appeal has been filed and the decree for recovery of possession now stands stayed. Notwithstanding the order of stay, the petitioner asserts that she still apprehends violent conduct on the part of respondents 5 to 11. In these circumstances, it is submitted that this petition filed as early as on 28.01.2010 and in which there has been no subsequent orders after 03.02.2010 is still relevant.

¶52

Respondents have entered appearance. Respondents 5, 6 and 7 submit that they are dutiful and law abiding citizen. They seek recovery of possession only in accordance with law. They have no intention to take law into their hands either by themselves or through respondents 5, 6 and 7. They shall not do the same. This undertaking may be recorded. No further directions are necessary in this Writ Petition, submits the learned counsel for respondents 5, 6 and 7. Respondents 8 to 11 are also represented by counsel. The learned counsel for respondents 9 to 11 submits that respondents 9 to 11 have no intention to aid

¶53

W.P(C) No.2892 of 2010-J

¶54

¶55

or help respondents 5 to 7 in their attempt to throw out the petitioner from the premises by use of force. The learned counsel for the 8^th respondent also repeats the same assertion. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 2 to 4 submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is no threat against the life, person or property of the petitioner. If there be any such contumacious and violent conduct on the part of respondents 5 to 11 to throw the petitioner physically out of possession using force notwithstanding the pendency of the civil proceedings, necessary action shall be taken by respondents 2 to 4, submits the learned Government Pleader.

¶56

We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We take note of the submission of respondents 5 to 11 through their counsel. We take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader. We are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this Writ Petition. We may state specifically that we accept the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader that necessary action shall be taken if such action is found to be warranted.

¶57

W.P(C) No.2892 of 2010-J

¶58

¶59

This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances,

¶60

dismissed with the above observations.

¶61

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶62

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶63

rtr/

Leela Raghavan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leela Raghavan 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

The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corpn. Vs M/S.Kitex Garments Ltd.

E.S.I.Corporation Vs Apsara Tourist Home

Pradeep.P. Vs the Circle Inspector of Police, Haripad

Jacob Taliat Vs the Marine Products Exports Development

Joby Vs Marykutty Joseph

N.C.Avarankutty Haji Vs the Superintendent of Police