Kerala High Court
V.K. Varghese vs The Superintendent Of Police (Rural)
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur, P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2014/2ND JYAISHTA, 1936
WP(C).No. 6604 of 2014 (A)
---------------------------
PETITIONER :
--------------------
V.K. VARGHESE, AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O.KURIAN, VALAYIL HOUSE
WEST VENGOLA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 556
BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
SMT.MINI.V.A.
SRI.C.P.REJI
SRI.JENIN JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 101.
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542
4. KAMALUDHEEN
S/O.O.A.ABDUL RAHMAN, ONODIPOTHIYIL VEEDU
WEST VENGOLA P.O., ARACKAPADY VILLAGE
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 556.
5. MUHAMMED KUNJU
S/O. O.A.ABDUL RAHMAN, ONODIPOTHIYIL VEEDU
WEST VENGOLA P.O., ARACKAPADY VILLAGE
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683 556.
6. K.V. VEERAS, S/O.VAHID
KUNDUVELIL VEEDU, PONJASSERI PO.,
ARACKAPADY VILLAGE, VENGOLA KARA,
ERNAKULAM - 683 556.
...2/-
WP(C).No. 6604 of 2014 (A) -2-
7. O.A. VEERA, S/O.ALI
ONODIPOTHIYIL HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA PO
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 556.
8. O.V. MUNEER, S/O. O.A.VEERA
ONODIPOTHIYIL HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA PO
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 556.
R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAVIS
R4, R5, R7 & R8 BY ADV. SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVARGHESE
R6 BY SENIOR ADVOCATE DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...3/-
WP(C).No. 6604 of 2014 (A)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 21-1-2012 & 22/2/2012 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26-3-2011 ISSUED BY THE
INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE TAHSILDAR KUNNATHUNAD ALONG
WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 11-1-2013 SWORN BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER ARACKAPADY VILLAGE.
EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18-3-2013 IN
WPC.NO.24057/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14-2-2014 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14-2-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6/6/2013 IN WP(C) NO. 7664/2013 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P8- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 21/3/2014
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J.
&
P.V.ASHA, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(c) No.6604 of 2014
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2014
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur,CJ From submissions across the Bar, what we notice is since petitioner has lodged complaints against the neighbours complaining illegal reclamation of paddy land, the party respondents have grievance against the petitioner. Revenue authorities have already initiated action against the reclamation of paddy lands and this must have been root cause for the misunderstanding of things between petitioner and his neighbours.
2. According to petitioner, in spite of initiating action, respondents have not stopped illegal reclamation and on the other hand they not only threatened the petitioner but manhandled him for which petitioner approached the police for suitable action. However, police did not take any action, therefore, he is before this Court.
W.P.(c) No.6604 of 2014 2
3. According to learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the complaint by respondents, both petitioner and respondents were called to the police station and advised to live amicably and resort to legal action in accordance with law without harming each other. The fact remains, several cases are pending against neighbours by the petitioner. Petitioner is not making allegations against those neighbours but he is making specific allegations against party respondents herein.
4. In the light of the same, respondent police is directed to look into the complaint lodged by the petitioner as per Ext.P5 and do the needful.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
sj24/05