Dismissed

Beenamma v. the Director General of Police

Kerala HC2 Nov 2017WP(C)/27549/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking police protection to enter a residential property, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition. Finding no materials to establish a threat to life or property amidst pending civil disputes, the Court left the matter open for the petitioners to approach the police if such a threat arises in the future.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the police officer concerned in the event of any necessity for protection.

Beenamma Vs the Director General of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/ 11TH KARTHIKA, 1939 WP(C).No. 27549 of 2017 (P) ---------------------------PETITIONERS: ----------1. BEENAMMA AGE 44, W/O JOSEPH GEORGE, JACOB VILLA, PULLUVILA, KARUMKULAM, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. JOSEPH GEORGE AGE 53, S/O PATHROSE,JACOB VILLA, PULLUVILA, KARUMKULAM, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶3

RESPONDENTS:

¶4

----------- 1.	THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KERALA, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 010
2.	THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. PIN- 695 524
3.	SARAN LOUIS AGE 44, S/O JERIN LOUIS, VINU HOUSE, PULLUVILA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 526
4.	ELSI XAVIER AGE 55, W/O XAVIER, BENSI BHAVAN, PANAMOODU, PULLUVILA, NEYYATTINKIARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 526
5.	STANELY PERIERA AGE 40, S/O PERIERA, BENSI BHAVAN, PANAMOODU, PULLUVILA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 526
6.	SINI PERIERA AGE 35,W/O STANELY PERIERA, BENSI BHAVAN, PANAMOODU, PULLUVILA,NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 526
7.	HESTIN GRACEN @ JERI AGE 40 YEARS, S/O GRACEN, G.S. NIVAS, PULLUVILA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 526

¶5

WPC No..27549 OF 2017 2

¶6

PEERU MUHAMMED AGE 52, S/O SHEHABA. PURAYIDOM VEEDU, PANAMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 526

¶7

HAISEL AGE 40 YEARS, W/O FRANKLIN, ERAMANTHURA PURAYIDOM, PULLUVILA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 526

¶8

R3,R4,R6-R9 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP R BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.P.THAJUDEEN

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

WPC No..27549 OF 2017 3

¶11

WP(C).No. 27549 of 2017 (P)

¶12

APPENDIX

¶13

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶14

EXHIBITP1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31-07-2017 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶15

EXHIBITP2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31-07-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶16

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL.

TRUE COPY

P.S.TO JUDGE

css

Antony Dominic & Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ.

¶21

WPC No.27549 of 2017

¶22

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2017

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Antony Dominic, J.

¶25

The petitioners are owners of 33.53 Ares of land in Karamkulam Village. It is their case that there is a residential building in the property where they were residing. It appears that there are disputes between the parties concerning a pathway and the suits filed by both sides are pending before the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. In the suits, interim orders have already been passed by the civil court.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the orders obtained by them from the civil court, the respondents are still not permitting them to reside in the house and that as a result thereof, they are compelled to reside in a rented premises at Thiruvananthapuram. It is in these circumstances, this petition is filed seeking an order of police protection in order to enable them to enter the house and reside there.

¶27

WPC No.27549 of 2017 2

¶28

We heard the learned Government Pleader and the party respondents. The learned counsel for the party respondents submits that the parties have already moved before the civil court and that there is no threat or other danger to the petitioner's life or property. It is stated that the attempt of the petitioners was always to obstruct a pathway which are entitled to be used by the party respondents also. He denies the allegation of the petitioners that they have made it impossible for the petitioners to live in their house. According to them, for the last four years, the petitioners are voluntarily residing at a rented premises in Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Government Pleader also says that there is no threat or other danger justifying the prayer of the petitioners for police protection.

¶29

Admittedly, there are civil disputes between the parties and those disputes are to be got resolved by the civil court itself. Considering the nature of the submissions made, and in the absence of any materials, we cannot accept the case of the petitioners that there is threat to their life or their property. However, at the same time, we may observe that if the petitioners

¶30

WPC No.27549 of 2017 3

¶31

apprehend or face any threat to their life or property, they are entitled to be protected by the police.

¶32

Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the police officer concerned in the event of any necessity, the writ petition is disposed of. We again clarify that we have not pronounced on the rights of either of the parties concerning the pathway which is pending before the civil court.

¶33

sd/- Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶34

css/

¶35

true copy

¶36

P.S.TO JUDGE

Beenamma v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beenamma v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indus Towers Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

T.N.Ashok Kumar Vs the District Collector

P.B.Sali Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mary George Vs the Superintendant of Police, Kottayam

Falcon Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Police

M/S. Lifeline Super Specialty Hospital Vs the State of Kerala