Disposed

Prakash Kumar, v. the State Police Chief

Kerala HC22 Mar 2022WP(C)/6019/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking direction to police to stop harassing the petitioner regarding a civil dispute over a pathway. The Court held that the issue of pathway width is a civil matter pending in a lower court and directed the SHO not to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent (SHO) is directed not to interfere in the civil dispute or harass the petitioner; petitioner to approach civil court for injunction violations.

Prakash Kumar, Vs the State Police Chief — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO.6019 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER :-

¶7

PRAKASH KUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, KALLUTHUNDIL VEEDU, AAYIKUNNAM MURI, SOORANAD THEKKU VILLAGE, SOORANAD P.O., KOLLAM-690 522.

¶8

BY ADV B.MOHANLAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS :-

¶10

1 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 506.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SASTHAMKOTTA, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM-695 021.

¶13

4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SOORANAD POLICE STATION SOORANAD P O, KOLLAM-690 021

¶14

5 SRI.SIVAN PILLAI, S/O.BALAKRISHNA KURUP, KALLUTHUNDIL PADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, AAIKUNNAM MURI, SOORANAD THEKKU VILLAGE, SOORANAD P.O., KOLLAM-690 522.

¶15

BY ADVS. B.KRISHNA MANI DHANUJA M.S N.V.SANDHYA P.V.DILEEP SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO.6019 OF 2022

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2022

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

¶22

“(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order of direction commanding the Respondents 1 to 4 not to harass the petitioner and others in any manner with the connivance of the 5^th respondent by threatening and interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the C- Schedule pathway and to ply the vehicles including the 4 wheeler through the pathway as per Ext.P2 order in O.S.No.211/2016 and Ext.P4 order in O.S.No.236/2016 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcottah.

¶23

(ii) To declare that the Respondents 1 to 4 have absolutely no jurisdiction to harass the petitioner and others in any manner with the connivance of the 5^th respondent by threatening and interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the C-Schedule pathway and to ply the vehicles including 4 wheeler through the pathway as per Ext.P2 order in O.S.No.211/2016 and Ext.P4 order in O.S.No.236/2016 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcottah.”

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶25

learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

that the petitioner along with others had filed O.S.No.211/2016 before the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcottah and Ext.P2 interim order of injunction had been granted by the Munsiff Court with regard to

¶28

WP(C) NO.6019 OF 2022

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

the C-schedule pathway having a width of 2.60 metres. It is submitted that the 5^th respondent, after receipt of notice in the petitioner's suit, had filed O.S.No.236/2016 before the same court and had obtained Ext.P4 order of ad-interim injunction. It is submitted that the 5^th respondent is a money lender and that he has exercised influence on the 4^th respondent and that the police are not permitting the petitioner to enjoy the benefits of Ext.P2 interim injunction order passed by the Munsiff Court in his case. It is submitted that the petitioner who was enjoying the benefits of Ext.P2 has now been restrained from using the pathway to his property and from taking vehicles through the said pathway as was expressly permitted by Ext.P2.

¶31

A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 5^th respondent. It is contended therein that the issue with regard to the width of the pathway is now pending before the competent civil court in the suits. It is the contention of the 5^th respondent that the width of the pathway is only 3 feet and that the contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the width of the pathway is completely untenable. It is contended that even in case the petitioner has any contention that there is a violation of the order of injunction in O.S.No.211/2016, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court and get appropriate orders. It

¶32

WP(C) NO.6019 OF 2022

¶33

-: 4 :-

¶34

is submitted that in view of the interim injunction orders as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P4, the issue requires a clarification at the hands of the civil court and that the orders as sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted since it would amount to widening the scope of the orders passed by the civil court.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police have no right to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties and an order against such interference and harassment is all that is sought for in the writ petition.

¶36

The learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that the parties had been summoned to the police station and they had been required to abide by the injunction orders of the civil court and that absolutely no harassment or interference at the instance of the police in the civil dispute between the parties is evidenced from any of the materials placed on record.

¶37

Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the issue with regard to the width of the pathway is a matter which is pending before the competent civil court and that the said issue has to be considered appropriately by the said court. However, the 4^th respondent shall not interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent. In case the

¶38

WP(C) NO.6019 OF 2022

¶39

-: 5 :-

¶40

petitioner has any contention that the order of injunction is being violated by the 5^th respondent, the petitioner shall approach the competent civil court in accordance with law. The 4^th respondent shall not take any steps to either harass the petitioner or involve in the civil dispute between the parties.

¶41

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶42

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶43

Jvt/24.3.2022

¶44

WP(C) NO.6019 OF 2022

¶45

-: 6 :-

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6019/2022

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT OS NO.211/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER AND HIS RELATIVES AGAINST THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTAH.

¶49

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 26.09.2016 IN IA NO.1125/2016 IN OS NO.211/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTAH. Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT OS NO.236/2016 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTAH. Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2016 IN IA NO.1352/20176 IN OS NO.236/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTAH. Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.02.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶50

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10.02.2022 IN PETITION NO.26312/2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANADU POLICE STATION. Exhibit R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 9-11-2021 ISSUED FROM THE SOORANADU POLICE STATION. Exhibit R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27-2-2022 ISSUED FROM THE SOORANADU POLICE STATION.

Prakash Kumar, v. the State Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Kumar, v. the State Police Chief

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

S.K.Metal Crushers and Quarry Private Limited, Vs State of Kerala

Roshan Joseph Baby Vs District Collector, Pathanamthitta

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Tmt Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Salavudhin K.K. Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Shibin Babu Vs District Police Chief