Kerala High Court
Mrs. Anandam vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 December, 2010
Author: K.M.Joseph
Bench: K.M.Joseph, M.C.Hari Rani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37664 of 2010(G)
1. MRS. ANANDAM, AGED 82 YEARS, W/O. LATE
... Petitioner
2. C.A.KUNHIKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. RAJU, S/O. XAVIER,
For Petitioner :SRI.IMTHYAZ AHAMMED M.S.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :22/12/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.37664 of 2010-G
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 22nd day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the Ist respondent to give adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioners of their family members.
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the Ist respondent to remove the illegal obstruction caused by the 2nd respondent in the pathway of the petitioners."
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows. The Ist petitioner is the mother of the 2nd petitioner. The Ist petitioner is aged 82 years. Petitioner along with their family consisting of the wife and 2 children are residing in the house situated in 5 cents of property in Kumbalangi village. The said property is in the name of late husband of the Ist petitioner. It is alleged that the above residence has only a pathway for ingress and egress. The said pathway is about WPC 37664/2010 -2- 100 meter length. It is the only access to the main road namely Chellanam-Pandikudi road. It is stated that large extent of property abutting the pathway is owned by the 2nd respondent who is doing prawn farming. The 2nd respondent and his family are residing elsewhere. The 2nd respondent was eying the property of the petitioners. He along with his muscle men has tried several times to threaten the petitioners with life so as to flee from the property. Now the 2nd respondent has bought over all those who were helping the petitioners at the time of their need with his money power. The 2nd respondent and his men unloaded a load of red soil across the pathway blocking the entry to the house of the petitioners. Difficulties of the petitioners are mentioned. The petitioners filed Ext.P1 complaint and are before us.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader.
In the nature of the allegations we feel that it is more appropriate that the petitioners move the competent civil Court. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to move competent civil Court we dispose of the writ petition. WPC 37664/2010 -3- We make it clear that if the petitioners complain of commission of any cognizable offence by the 2nd respondent or his men before the Ist respondent, the Ist respondent will take action on the same in accordance with law.
(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.
(M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE.
MS