Dismissed

Dr.N.R.Nisha v. Commissioner of Police,Ernakulam

Kerala HC7 Jun 2011WP(C)/8712/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking police protection against the secretary of their apartment association alleged harassment. The court, finding no threat to life or person, declined to issue directions under Article 226, stating grievances should be handled by police. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None. Directions under Article 226 for police protection were not issued.

Dr.N.R.Nisha Vs Commissioner of Police,Ernakulam — Service and Employment | 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

TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 8712 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

1. DR. N.R.NISHA, W/O. SUNIL BABU R., AGED 37, FLAT NO.E6, JEWEL WHITE FIELD APARTMENTS, HAMSAKUNJU LANE, S.R.M.ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.

¶9

2. LATHIKA SREEKUMAR, FLAT NO.A1, JEWEL WHITE FIELD APARTMENTS, HAMSAKUNJU LANE, S.R.M.ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 018.

¶15

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 018.

¶16

4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION (VANITHA), ERNAKULAM-682 018.

¶17

5. CAP. PAUL ANTONY, FLAT NO.D1, JEWEL WHITE FIELD APARTMENTS, HAMSAKUNJU LANE, S.R.M.ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.

¶18

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R5 BY ADV. CAPT.PAUL ANTONY.M( PARTY IN PERSON)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

tss

¶21

W.P.(C) NO.8712/2011

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTA. 16.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND AND 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶26

R5(a):- COPY OF THE REG. CERTIFICATE ALONG WITH MEMORANDUM AND BYE-LAWS OF THE ASSOCIATION.

¶27

R5(b):- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 12.2.2011 SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR.

¶28

R5(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18.2.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSOCIATION TO STATE BANK OF INDIA.

¶29

R5(d):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 14.3.2011 RECEIVED FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY.

¶30

R5(e):- COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4.

¶31

R5(f):- COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4.

¶32

R5(g):- COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSOCIATION TO THE TWO PETITIONERS AND THEIR HUSBANDS.

¶33

R5(h):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT WAS LEDGED AGAINST PETITIONERS AND THEIR HUSBANDS BEFORE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 8712 of 2011-L

¶39

------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2011

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Basant,J.

¶42

The petitioners have come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 to 4 to afford police protection against the illegal, contumacious and culpable acts of the 5^th respondent.

¶43

According to the petitioners, they are occupants of Jewel White Field Apartments. The houses stand in the names of their husbands and their husbands are members of Jewel White Field A- Block Luxury Apartments Owners Association of which the 5^th respondent is the Secretary. According to the petitioners, their husbands are not available at Kochi. The petitioners are subjected to untold hardships, difficulties and vexation by the 5^th respondent who is the Secretary of the Association. It is hence that protection is claimed by the petitioners against the 5^th respondent.

¶44

According to the petitioners, their husbands are members of the Association of which the 5^th respondent is the Secretary. They have paid all amounts due

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 8712 of 2011 -: 2 :-

¶46

to the Association. The 5^th respondent is unnecessarily vexing and harassing the petitioners.

¶47

What are the contumacious acts alleged? It is

¶48

complained that the 5^th respondent is submitting various false complaints to the authorities against the petitioners. It is further complained that the 5^th respondent has issued lawyer's notice against the petitioners. The further grievance raised is that the 5^th respondent is switching off the lift in the apartment complex. It is also complained that impure water is made available to the petitioners. These are the allegations raised.

¶49

The 5^th respondent has appeared in person. He happens to be an advocate of this Court. According to the 5^th respondent, the petitioners are indulging in vexatious conduct. Totally false allegations are raised by the petitioners. The allegations include the allegation that the 5^th respondent and the other office bearers of the Association are indulging in indecent conduct against the petitioners. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners and other members of the Association were compelled to lodge complaints against the petitioners. In fact, it is the Association which had asked for protection against the illegal conduct of the petitioners before the police. This petition is without any merit. It is calculated to harass the 5^th respondent and the other office bearers of the Association. The 5^th

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 8712 of 2011 -: 3 :-

¶51

respondent perceives that the attempt of the petitioners is at the instance of a competing Association which is also functioning in the entire complex. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that this petition may be dismissed.

¶52

Notice was given to the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submits that complaints have been received against the petitioners and their husbands from the office bearers of the Association and against the office bearers of the Association from the petitioners. According to the police, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioners. It is only disputes between two owners and their wives in the White Field Apartment complex and the office bearers of the Association. They have to learn to live happily and peacefully as neighbours. Complaints galore. But there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioners or the 5^th respondent or other office bearers of the Association. In these circumstances, according to the learned Government Pleader, no directions under Art.226 of the Constitution are necessary. Police had called both parties and in fact they had agreed that they shall not give any room for such complaints thereafter. The learned Government Pleader submits that if there be any contumacious, culpable or violent conduct on the part of the other, the petitioners or the 5^th respondent can complain to the

¶53

W.P.(C) No. 8712 of 2011 -: 4 :-

¶54

police whereupon the police shall take appropriate and necessary action in accordance with law.

¶55

We have anxiously rendered our consideration to all the relevant inputs. We are in agreement with the learned Government Pleader that there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioners. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that grievance, if any, of the petitioners or the 5^th respondent can be raised before the police whereupon the police shall take appropriate and necessary action in accordance with law if there be commission of any offence. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that there is no necessity for issuing any direction under Art.226 of the Constitution.

¶56

This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations and accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader.

¶57

Nan/

¶58

Sd/R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) //true copy// P.S. to Judge

Dr.N.R.Nisha v. Commissioner of Police,Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.N.R.Nisha v. Commissioner of Police,Ernakulam

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

C.N.MUTHUKRISHNAN,H.NO.4029,BANGALORE Vs C.G.Babu,Chamakkad House,Palakkad

Rathidevi Vs Saradamma

Muhammed Sali Vs District Superintendent of Police and

St.Sebastian Senior Basic School Vs Velayudhan Ezhuthassan

A.M.George Vs Managing Director

Al-Shaik-Al-Rita Memorial Charitable Vs Superintendent of Police