Kerala High Court
P.R. Ajayakumar Aged 33 Years vs The Station House Officer on 21 May, 2014
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2014/31ST VAISAKHA, 1936
WP(C).No. 11699 of 2014 (J)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
P.R. AJAYAKUMAR AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. T.K.RAGHAVAN, OLICKAL HOUSE, CHERUKULANJI
VALIYAKULAM P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SREEKUMARI
KOCHUTHADATHIL HOUSE, CHERUKULANJI, VALIYAKULAM P.O.
RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
SRI.PIOUS JACOB
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 672.
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 672.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
4. K.VASANTHA KUMAR
PRESIDENT, SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM
RANNI UNION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 672.
5. THE SECRETARY
SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM, RANNI UNION
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 672.
6. K.S.SATHEESAN
CONVENOR, YOUTH MOVEMENT SNDP UNION, RANNI
RESIDING AT KAPPAYIL HOUSE, CHELLAKKAD P.O., RANNI
PIN-689 677.
R1 TO R3 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 11699 of 2014 (J)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SNDP UNION RANNI TO THE
PETITIONER DTD.6.1.2014.
P2 : COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DTD.13.1.2014.
P3 : COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DTD.17.4.2014.
P4 : COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DTD.19.4.2014.
P5 : COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DTD.23.6.2012 ISSUED BY SNDP UNION,
RANNI, TOWARDS REMITTANCE OF RENT, INCLUDING ADVANCE RENT TILL
DECEMBER, 2013.
P6 : COPY OF THE MONEY ORDER FORM UNDER WHICH RENT PAID BY THE
PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY, 2014.
P7 : COPY OF THE MONEY ORDER FORM UNDER WHICH RENT PAID BY THE
PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 2014.
P8 : COPY OF THE MONEY ORDER FROM UNDER WHICH RENT PAID BY THE
PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 2014.
P9 : COPY OF THE MONEY ORDER FROM UNDER WHICH RENT PAID BY THE
PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD APRIL, 2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J
&
P.V.ASHA, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 11699 of 2014
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st May, 2014
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Petitioner is before this Court seeking following relief:
" to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing respondents 1 to 3 to render adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner's employees and to the office of Malanadu News Channel conducted by the petitioner, from illegal threat and obstruction by respondents 4 to 6 and their men."
2. According to petitioner, he has taken a building belonging to the fifth respondent on lease. The premises was taken on lease for the purpose of running a news channel. The said building is on the third floor. After taking the premises on lease, petitioner had to complete the construction, as the building was half constructed at the time of taking it on lease. When he spent huge amounts for completing the construction, rent was fixed at the rate of 3,500/- per month with certain conditions. According to petitioner, subsequent to completion of the building, owner of building has WP(C).11699/14 2 demanded 6,000/- as rent and they further obstructed employees of petitioner to enter the building to run the programme. Therefore, they approached police. When they did not get any response, they have approached this Court.
3. By looking at the contents of petition itself, the cause of action pleaded by petitioner seems to be that though he is a tenant in possession of the building, his right to enjoy the premises along with his employees is interfered with, which is purely a civil right. If there is any dispute between the parties with regard to quantum of rent or term of lease or anything to do with the lease agreement, we fail to understand how such disputes could be resolved with interference of police. Petitioner has to establish his rights before a civil court. Unless crime is attempted or committed, respondent police shall not interfere with the civil rights of the parties.
With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of keeping all contentions open.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.V.ASHA, JUDGE vgs21.5.14