The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petition seeking protection against alleged violence from the respondents (owners of an ashram) in a pending civil property dispute, finding no specific threat warranting judicial intervention under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932
WP(C).No. 6707 of 2011(K)
PETITIONER :
---------------------
SATHEESAN, VAZHAKUTTAM VEEDU, AMRITAPURI, PARAYAKADAVU, ALAPPAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SMT.S.MEERA SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690518.
2. PURNNAMIRATYANDAPURI, SECRETARY, MATA AMRITHANANDAMAYI MADOM, AMRITAPURI, PARAYAKADAVU, ALAPPAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-680641.
3. RAJU, ASHRAM INMATE, RESIDING AT MATA AMRITHANANDAMAYI MADOM, AMRITAPURI, PARAYAKADAVU, ALAPPAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT-680641.
4. MATHRYADAS, ASHRAM INMATE RESIDING AT MATA AMRITHANDAMAYI MADOM,AMRITAPURI, PARAYAKADAVU, ALAPPAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT-680641.
5. MAHADEVAN, ASHRAM INMATE RESIDING AT MATA AMRITHANDAMAYI MADOM, AMRITAPURI, PARAYAKADAVU, ALAPPAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT-680641.
R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn ...2/-
WP(C).No. 6707 of 2011(K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21-2-2011.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
R.BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
W.P(C) NO:6707 OF 2011 K
Dated this the 11th March, 2011.
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
The petitioner has come to this Court claiming issue of directions under Art.226 to the first respondent to afford protection to the life and person of the petitioner and his family members against alleged illegal, culpable and violent acts of respondents 2 to 5.
2
WPC 6707/2011
WPC 6707/2011 3
attempt of the petitioner is only to steal a march over respondents 2 to 5 in the civil dispute between them. The categoric submission/undertaking of respondents 2 to 5 may be recorded that they shall not indulge in any contumacious act against the petitioner to compel him to settle the civil dispute. No directions in these circumstances are liable to be issued under Art.226 against respondents 2 to 5 submits the learned counsel.
WPC 6707/2011
4
R.BASANT Judge
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge
jj
WPC 6707/2011 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether specific directions under Article 226 are necessary to protect the petitioner from alleged harassment and violence in the context of an ongoing civil boundary dispute.
Satheesan
Smt. Anitha Ravindran
Smt. S. Meera
Smt. M.G. Aishwarya
The Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappally
Secretary, Mata Amrithanandamayi Madom
R. Basant
K. Surendra Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
