Allowed

Bhaskaran.K. v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Anchalummoodu

Kerala HC1 Apr 2013WP(C)/2223/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking police protection for temple committee during poojas against private obstruction. Court made interim order absolute, directing police to provide protection as required without hampering the pending civil suit over the same property.

What did the court decide?

Interim order made absolute; directions given for police protection to be provided to petitioners as required.

Bhaskaran.K. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2013/11TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 2223 of 2013 (L)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. BHASKARAN.K., PRESIDENT KIZHAKKUMPURATHU SREE BHADRA - BHAGAVATHY FAMILY TEMPLE COMMITTEE PRAKKULAM, PRAKKULAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 602, RESIDING AT PLAVILAYIL VEEDU, PRAKKULAM P.O, KOLLAM-691 602.

¶8

2. SUNIL KUMAR .V, SECRETARY, KIZHAKKUMPURATHU SREE BHADRABHAGAVATHY FAMILY TEMPLE COMMITTEE, PRAKKULAM, PRAKKULAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 602, RESIDING AT THOPIL VEEDU, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM-691 588.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, PERINAD P.O, KOLLAM-691 601.

¶12

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOLLAM-691 013.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM, HEAD POST OFFICE P.O., KOLLAM-691 001.

¶14

Prv.

¶15

W.P.(C).NO.2223/2013-C:

¶16

4. RAGHAVAN, KIZHAKKUMPURATHU VEEDU, MADATHIL MUKKU, KANJAVELI P.O, PRAKKULAM, KOLLAM-691 602.

¶17

5. MANILAL, S/O. RAGHAVAN, VAYALIL VEEDU (PRASANTHI BHAVANAM), NJARACKAL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 601.

¶18

6. BABU, S/O. RAGHAVAN, KIZHAKKUMPURATHU VEEDU, MADATHIL MUKKU, KANJAVELI P.O., PRAKKULAM, KOLLAM-691 602.

¶19

7. RAJU, S/O. RAGHAVAN, KIZHAKKUMPURATHU VEEDU, MADATHIL MUKKU, KANJAVELI. P.O., PRAKKULAM, KOLLAM – 691 602.

¶20

8. SARASAMMA, USHA BHAVAN,KARUNAGAPPALLY, CLAPPANA.P.O., KOLLAM – 691 525.

¶21

R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER, R4 TO 7 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Prv.

¶24

W.P.(C). NO.2223/2013-C:

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶27

P1 : COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DTD.15.2.07 EXECUTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF KIZHAKKUMPURATHU SREE BHADRA BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT.

¶28

P2 : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD.13.7.2012 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKARUVA.

¶29

P3 : COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD.7.7.2012 IN OS NO.477/2012 FILED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM.

¶30

P4 : COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION IA NO.3934/2012 IN OS NO.477/2012, DTD.4.10.2012 FILED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM.

¶31

P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.11.10.2012 IN IA N O.3934/2012 IN OS NO.477/2012 DTD.11.10.2012 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM.

¶32

P6 : COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING HELD ON 11.10.2012.

¶33

P7 : COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.16.10.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶34

P8 : COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.14.11.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶35

P9 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.22.11.2012 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

Prv.

K. M. JOSEPH & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶41

---------------------------------------------W.P.(C). NO. 2223 OF 2013 C

¶42

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st April 2013

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶45

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶46

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to give proper and adequate police protection to the petitioners for conducting pooja in Kizhakkumpurathu Sree Bhadra Bhagavathy Temple, Prakkulam, Kollam.

¶47

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary action to maintain law and order.”

¶48

Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:

¶49

The Sub Inspector of Police had earlier extended police protection to the temple and now, for malafide and other

¶50

WP(C).NO.2223/13 C

¶51

¶52

extraneous reasons, there is inaction on his part. The petitioners and other members of the temple committee are living under threat

¶53

of bodily harm and injury. The fact that the 8^th respondent had filed a suit as evidenced by Ext.P1 would go to show that execution of gift deed in favour of the temple is not disputed. So long as Ext.P1 gift deed is not set aside by a competent civil court, neither she nor her brother and his children have any right to cause physical obstruction to the running of the temple or to threaten the petitioners and other members of the temple committee. Petitioners were selected as President and Secretary of the committee by the family members. Ext.P6 minutes of the general body meeting held on 11/10/2012 would go to show that 46 family members participated in the meeting. Respondents 4 to 7 have no right whatsoever to prevent the petitioners and other temple committee members from entering the temple and performing pooja. This is not a civil dispute. There is no order of the civil court preventing conducting of pooja by the petitioners.

¶54

WP(C).NO.2223/13 C

¶55

¶56

Petitioners are not claiming police protection as against the 8^th respondent who had instituted Ext.P3 civil suit.

¶57

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Though served, there is no appearance for the party respondents. We have already passed an interim order as follows:

¶58

“There will be an interim order directing the first respondent to give adequate police protection to the life of the petitioners as against respondents 4 to 7 for a period of two weeks. We make it clear that the civil court considering Ext.P3 suit will be free to decide the matter including any interlocutory applications therein, untrammeled by our Order.”

¶59

We see no reason why we should not make the interim order absolute. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by making the interim order absolute and further directing that police protection will be given as directed as and when required. We further make it clear that the civil court will consider the matter

¶60

WP(C).NO.2223/13 C

¶61

¶62

pending before it (OS.No.477/12) untrammeled by anything contained in this Judgment.

Sd/=

K. M. JOSEPH

JUDGE

Sd/=

K. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGE

kbk.

//True Copy//

Bhaskaran.K. v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Anchalummoodu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskaran.K. v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Anchalummoodu

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

M/S.Park Central Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Thampi & Company Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

M/S.Mozart Global Furniture Vs Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board

South Travancore Distilleries and Allied Products Vs State of Kerala

Alappuzha Anantha Narayanapuram Thuravoor Thirumala Devaswom Vs Tahsildar, Kozhenchery Taluk Office

Kuruvilla Mani Vs K.V Suresh