In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala refused to grant specific police protection in a dispute between relatives over a demolished compound wall, cautioning instead that law and order be maintained.
Refused specific police protection; directed police to ensure no law and order disruption.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1941
WP(C).No.820 OF 2019(B)
PETITIONER/S:
1 THANKAMANI AGED 65 YEARS W/O.SADASIVAN, KAILAS, PANTHUVILA, AYANDHI, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 SADASIVAN
AGED 87 YEARS
KAILAS, PANTHUVILA,M AYANDHI, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENT/S:
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0108-2019, THE COURT ON 09-08-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.820 of 2019
2
K.VINOD CHANDRAN & V.G.ARUN, JJ.
W.P.(C) No.820 of 2019
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2019
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J
The petitioners and the respondents are relatives and are living nearby. There is a dispute with respect to a pathway and the allegation is that the party respondents demolished the compound wall of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there are disputes pending between the parties. The party respondents were summoned to the police station. They complained that it was their compound wall which was demolished. In any event they were warned and the parties were asked to desist from disrupting law and order.
Considering the disputes persisting between the parties, we are
W.P.(C) No.820 of 2019
3
not inclined to grant any specific police protection since one party may use it against the other. Hence, we merely caution the police that there should be no disruption of law and order.
The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
sd/V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
cms
W.P.(C) No.820 of 2019
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT ON 17/11/2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT OFFICE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF HOSPITAL REPORT ISSUED BY THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether specific police protection should be granted in a dispute between relatives regarding a demolished wall.
Whether the police machinery is required to intervene to protect the petitioners from the respondents.
THANKAMANI
SADASIVAN
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ATTINGAL
CENTRAL INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MINI
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
V.G.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
