Disposed

Mohammed v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC3 Dec 2014WP(C)/30006/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court was approached seeking police protection against alleged forcible eviction by the landlord and his associates. The Police Respondents argued the dispute is civil in nature. The Court held that police must ensure eviction occurs only with valid legal process and closed the petition with this observation.

What did the court decide?

The petition was closed with a direction to police authorities to ensure no forcible eviction occurs without valid legal process.

Mohammed Vs the Circle Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 30006 of 2014 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

MOHAMMED, S/O.KAMIL HASSAN, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAILA VILLA,PERUMKULAM, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141 (THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HIS MOTHER, MRS.LEKHA, D/O.AWWA UMMAL, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAILA VILLA, PERUMKULAM, VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI. NIMOD A.R

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141.

¶11

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141.

¶12

3. AYOOB, S/O.JAMAL MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT VAZHAVACHAVILA VEEDU,

¶13

KURAKKANNI DESOM,VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141

¶14

4. MUHAMMED ABDUL KADHAR, S/O.JAMAL MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT VAZHAVACHAVILA VEEDU, KURAKKANNI DESOM, VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 1541

¶15

R1 & R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C).No. 30006 of 2014 (A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1 -	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.850/2009 IN OS NO.125/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF VARKALA DATED 8-4-2009
EXT.P1(E) -	TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1
EXT.P2 -	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27-8-2014
EXT.P2(E) -	TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2
EXT.P3 -	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27-8-2014
EXT.P3(E) -	TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3
RESPONDEN	T(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

**ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.30006 of 2014

¶26

Dated this the 3^rd day of December 2014

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Though notice was issued to respondents 3 and 4, there is no appearance on their behalf.

¶30

Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate police protection for the smooth functioning of his restaurant from the threat of respondents 3 and 4. Petitioner's case is that 3^rd respondent is the landlord of the premises where petitioner is running the restaurant. He submits that though the dispute regarding eviction is already engaging attention of the Rent Control Court, the respondents are taking steps for forcible eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question. Petitioner has come up in this writ petition seeking protection from such forcible eviction.

¶31

Learned Government Pleader, after obtaining instructions, has submitted that since the dispute between the

¶32

W.P.C.No.30006/2014

¶33

¶34

parties regarding shop room in question, which is already pending before the Rent Control Court as R.C.P.No.03/2013, is a civil dispute, the police have no role to play. The learned Government Pleader, further submits that there were certain allegations against the shop regarding illegal sale of liquor with regard to which police had searched the premises. It is also submitted that on a complaint filed by the petitioner's manager, a crime has also been registered against the 4^th respondent.

¶35

Be that as it may, police authorities are bound to maintain law and order and they shall ensure that without there being any valid process of law, petitioner shall not be evicted forcibly at the instance of respondents 3 and 4.

¶36

With the above observation, this writ petition is closed.

¶37

(sd/-)

¶38

(ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶39

(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶40

jsr

¶41

W.P.C.No.30006/2014 3

¶42

W.P.C.No.30006/2014 4

¶43

W.P.C.No.30006/2014 5

Mohammed v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed v. the Circle Inspector of Police

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.Shriram Epc Limited Vs James.M.

Special Tahsildar Vs K.Ramachandran Nair & Another

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Shanavaz J.

Renya George Vs the Director

Dr.Ajith Kumar Vs the Chancellor

V.S.Sunilkumar Vs State of Kerala