Kerala High Court
V.R.Ashokan vs The Director General Of Police
Author: K.M.Joseph
Bench: K.M.Joseph, K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/18TH CHAITHRA 1935
WP(C).No. 27478 of 2012 (H)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
V.R.ASHOKAN,
RESIDING AT TC 19/1575 (2), VELNAGAR,
CHEENIVILA MELEPUTHEN VEEDU, THAMALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
AND STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 010.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
COLLECTORATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 043.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 012.
4. FR.JOHNSON KOCHU THUNDIL, VICAR, SACRED HEARTS MALANKARA
CATHOLIC CHURCH, THAMALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 012.
5. JUSTIN @ SASI, TC 19/1079, POTTAYIL VEEDU, THAMALAM,
POOJAPPURA P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 012.
6. PRADEEP RAJ, SECRETARY, SACRED HEARTS CHURCH,
S.M.QUARTERS, TC 19/972, TRA 62,
THAMALAM, CHULLAMUKKU, POOJAPPURA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.
*ADDL.R7 & R8 IMPLEADED
*R7: ANIL DAS @ AJU, S/O.SELVADAS, TC 19/1604(1),
ANIL NIVAS, THAMALAM, POOJAPPURA(PO),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012
sts 2/-
-2-
WP(C)NO.27478/2012
*R8: BABU @ VELLU BABU, S/O.PONNAN NADAR,
TC 20/1858,MELE VILAKAM KEEZHE PUTHEN VEEDU, THAMALAM,
CHULLAMUKKU, POOJAPPURA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM.
*ADDL.R7 & R8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/04/2013 IN I.A.NO.168/2013
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.A.MUHAMMED SHAH
BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C)NO.27478/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S11-80626/2008 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2008
EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION RECORDED BY THE SAID
SRI.SAJU ANTONY.
EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED NOTICE OF THE PETITIONER TO
THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2012.
EXT.P-4 THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BOUNDARY WALL DESTROYED BY THE
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8
EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN MATHRUBHUMI DATED
04/10/2011
EXT.P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/03/2012 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12/09/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE
WIFE OF THE PETITIONER TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME
EXT.P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 20/12/2011 ISSUED BY
THE ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF
POOJAPPURA
EXT.P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.935/12 DATED 2/10/2012 OF POOJAPPURA
POLICE STATION
EXT.P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 13/10/2012 ALONG WITH RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE SUB- INSPECTOR, POOJAPPURA
EXT.P-11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TP/E8/25885/11, 24974/11 & 25289/11
DATED 9/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
R6(A) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24/10/2007 BEFORE THE SECRETARY
OF THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM
R6(B) COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 4 & 6 DATED
06/01/2011 BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
R6(C) COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 4 & 6
BEFORE THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION DATED
06/01/2011
sts 2/-
-2-
WP(C)NO.27478/2012
R6(D) COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT 4 & 6 BEFORE
THE SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION DATED 22/02/2011
R6(E) COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT 4 & 6
R6(F) COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.T.P.E8/25885/11 DATED 09/06/2011
R6(G) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/10/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
R6(H) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/10/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
R6(I) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/10/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER
R6(J) COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.808/2011 OF THE POOJAPPURA POLICE
DATED 04/10/2011
R6(K) COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20/10/2011 BEFORE THE CIRCLE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MUSEUM POLICE STATION
R6(L) COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH DATED 05/01/2013
R6(M) COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH DATED 05/01/2013
R6(N) COPY OF THE REPORT IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 05/10/2011
R6(O) COPY OF THE REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 05/10/2011
R6(P) COPY OF THE REPORT IN DEEPIKA DAILY DATED 05/10/2011
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE
sts
K.M.JOSEPH & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.27478 of 2012
-----------------------------------------
Dated, this the 8th day of April, 2013
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"a). Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate police protection to implement Ext.P1 order.
b). Initiate action under Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code for implementing Ext.P1 and to maintain peace and tranquility in the area."
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is a resident of Thamalam. Near his building there is a Church of which 4th respondent is the Vikar. When the 4th respondent started construction of a new Church, the 2nd respondent, District Collector imposed certain conditions so as to prevent nuisance to the neighbours. But, the 4th respondent, contrary to the conditions imposed by the 2nd W.P.(C) No.27478 of 2012 2 respondent started intimidating the petitioner and others. In spite of the matter being brought to the notice of respondents 1 and 2, no action was taken. Hence, the petition. Counter affidavit is filed by the party respondents. Additional counter affidavit is also filed. Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that the party respondents are not using and they have no intention to use loud speaker. We record the said submission. We direct that, in case the party respondents attempt to use loud speaker in violation of Ext.P1, that shall not be permitted by the 3rd respondent. In other words, the 3rd respondent will enforce the condition in Ext.P1 that no loud speaker shall be used. We dispose of the writ petition as above. We are not pronouncing on the other issues.
(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.
( K.RAMAKRISHNAN) JUDGE.
MS