Writ petition challenging a lack of police protection. Court relied on respondents' undertakings not to obstruct educational institutions and dismissed petition as specific directions were unnecessary.
No specific directions issued; petition dismissed based on accepted undertakings by respondents.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933
WP(C).No. 6984 of 2011(W) ----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------
JOSEPH.D.FERNANDEZ, S/O.DAVID V., AGED 72 YEARS, VALIYAVILA HOUSE, PAVATTUMOOLA, PERAYAM, MULAVANA, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G.
RESPONDENT(S):
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 502.
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 501.
5. RATHEESH, S/O.SARASIJAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KOMALATH HOUSE, PALLIKKAL, MAVELIKARA, PIN-690 503.
6. SATHEESH, S/O.SARASIJAN, KOMALATH HOUSE, PALLIKKAL, MAVELIKARA, PIN-690 503.
7. SHABULAL, S/O.NELAMBARAN, BABU VILASAM, SN PURAM, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 507.
8. JAGADESH, S/O.P.K.RAGHAVAN, SREE MANDIRAM, NELLIMUKAL P.O., ADOOR-691 551.
Kss
..2/-
..2...
WPC.NO.6984/2011 W
9. SALIM KUMAR, S/O.LAKSHMAN, AGED 50 YEARS, YAMUNNA MANDIRAM, KOYIKKALMURI, EAST KALLADA, PIN-691 502.
10. SAJILAL, S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, AGED 35 YEARS, KANDATHIL HOUSE, EAST KALLADA, PIN-691 502.
11. SASILAL, S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, AGED 37 YEARS, KANDATHIL HOUSE, EAST KALLADA 13, PIN-691 502.
12. SAJAILAL, S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, AGED 33 YEARS, KANDATHIL HOUSE, EAST KALLADA, PIN-691502.
13. SIVAPRASAD, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS, KAVITHA NIVAS, UPPUDU, EAST KALLADA,PIN-691 502.
14. AJITH PRASAD, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 49 YEARS, AARAMAM, CHITTUMALA, EAST KALLADA,PIN-691 502.
15. GOPU KRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAPILLAI, HARITHA, CHERUPUNCHAYIL, CHITTUMALA, EAST KALLADA, PIN-691 502.
R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISMA
R5 TO R7 BY ADVS. SMT.K.G.BINDU, SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL), SMT.PRINCY XAVIER. R9 TO R15 BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.6984/2011 W
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
Kss
R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
W.P(C) NO:6984 OF 2011 W
----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23rd March, 2011.
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Art.226 to respondents 2 to 4 police officials under the first respondent to afford protection for him against apprehended violent, contumacious and culpable acts on the part of respondents 5 to 15.
WPC 6984/2011 2
whatsoever to interfere with the functioning of the two educational institutions in any manner. They have a property dispute with the petitioner. Petitioner is bound to execute document assigning a property to them on the basis of an agreement. Petitioner has not done the same. Respondents 5 to 8 have been insisting that the petitioner must comply with the obligations under the agreement. Respondents 5 to 8 have caused registered notice of demand to be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is attempting to steal a march over respondents 5 to 8 in that dispute by unnecessarily raising an allegation against them that they are trying to obstruct the peaceful running of the two educational institutions. The undertaking of respondents 5 to 8 may be recorded that they shall not in any way interfere with the peaceful running of the two educational institutions. No directions under Art.226 are liable to be issued against them submits the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8.
WPC 6984/2011
3
petitioner are not bonafide. He has come to th is Court to secure an order of protection with ulterior motives. He wants to make use of the same for other purposes and to settle the disputes with the respondents. There is absolutely no obstruction caused against the running of the two educational institutions. Learned counsel for respondents 9 to 15 submits that it may be recorded that respondents 9 to 15 shall not in any way interfere with the peaceful and orderly running of the two educational institutions referred above. But it may be clarified that the order of protection shall not in any way help the petitioner to use the same against the respondents for other purposes. The learned counsel for respondents 9 to 15 submits that there are other disputes. There is an attempt by the petitioner to excavate and remove earth in large quantities from the property. Objections have been raised by the local people including some of the respondents against that. That cannot be described or reckoned as obstruction to the peaceful running of the two establishments. There is also a dispute regarding the putting up of a boundary.
The parties are already before the Civil Court. It may be clarified that the order of protection claimed by the petitioner
WPC 6984/2011 4
will not in any way help him in such disputes with respondents 9 to 15.
“Respondents 5 to 8 and respondents 9 to 15 have entered appearance through different counsel. It is undertaken by counsel that the respondents shall not in any way obstruct the peaceful running of the St.Joseph International Academy at Kumbalam or the St.Joseph School, Chittumala during the pendency of the proceedings. We accept the undertaking of the respondents and direct respondents 2 to 4 to afford police protection till 21.3.2011, if there is any violation of the undertaking.”
WPC 6984/2011
5
We are satisfied in these circumstances that the submissions/undertaking of the counsel on behalf of respondents 5 to 15 and the undertaking of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 can be accepted and no further specific directions are necessary in this writ petition.
R.BASANT Judge
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge
jj
WPC 6984/2011 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether specific directions under Article 226 are necessary for police protection against apprehended violence in a property dispute involving educational institutions.
JOSEPH.D.FERNANDEZ
STATE OF KERALA
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KOLLAM
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
RATHEESH
R. BASANT
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
