Kerala High Court
Balatharakan vs The District Police Chief on 11 January, 2018
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1939
WP(C).No. 32832 of 2016(D)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. BALATHARAKAN
S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY THARAKAN,
VADAKKE NAMBIARATH VEETTIL,
VEERAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. DEVAN @ KUTTANUNNITHARAKAN,
S/O.AMBALATHARAKAN,
AZHIKKATTIL HOUSE,
VEERAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADV.SRI.P.JAYARAM
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------
1. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHERUPULASSERY-679503.
3. KHADEEJA,
D/O.LATE VEERAN,
KADAMTHODI HOUSE,
VEERAMANGALAM P O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679502.
4. NABEESA,
D/O.LATE VEERAN, KADAMTHODI HOUSE,
VEERAMANGALAM P O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679502.
WP(C).No. 32832 of 2016 (D)
---------------------------
2
5. SRAJUDHEEN,
S/O.MARAKKAR,
KADAMTHODI HOUSE,
VEERAMANGALAM P O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679502.
6. MUHAMMED,
S/O.KUNHIVEERAN,
KADAMTHODI HOUSE,
VEERAMANGALAM P O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679502.
7. SAIDALAVI,
S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY,
CHOLAYIL HOUSE,
KADAMTHODI HOUSE,
VEERAMANGALAM P O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679502.
8. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R1,R2 & R8 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
R1,R2 & R8 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN
R3,R4,R5&R7 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-02-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 32832 of 2016 (D)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
---------
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 264/2016 ON THE
FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN IA NO
1607/2016 IN OS NO 264/2016 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF
COURT, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN DTD. 1/7/2016
SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN OS
NO 264/2016 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT,
OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/7/2016 IN IA NO
1607/2016, OS NO 264/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT,
OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 25/7/2016
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SUB
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPULASSERY
EXHIBIT P5(a) COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE
CHERUPULASSERY POLICE STATION WITH REFERENCE
OF EXT.P5 COMPLAINT.
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE
FAMILY DEITY, SARPAKAVU.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/1/2018 IN CMA NO.
20/2016 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
dkr
K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 32832 of 2016
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
Ashok Menon, J.
The petitioners were before us seeking protection to their life and property as well as their right to worship at a Sarpakavu situated at Veeramangalam.
2. It is stated that there is a Sarpakavu, where several Idols of snake deities are installed, and where being worshiped by the petitioners and members of their family from time immemorial. The said Sarpakavu is situated close to the property of respondents 3 and 4. Yearly festivals like Sarppamthullal and regular lighting of lamps are also performed at the place of worship. As the respondents 3 to 7 continued obstructing such worship by the petitioners, they filed Ext.P1 suit before the Munsiff's Court, Ottappalam, for a perpetual injunction against respondents 3 and 4. An application for temporary injunction was filed as I.A.No. 1607/2016 and after considering Ext.P2 objection filed by WP(C) 32832/2016 2 respondents 3 and 4, as well as the Commission report and sketch at Ext.P3, the parties were directed to maintain status quo as per Ext.P4 order. C.M.A.No.20/2016 filed before the Sub Court, Ottappalam by respondents 3 and 4 challenging Ext.P4 order was dismissed vide Ext.P7 judgment. Ext.P6 are the photographs of the Snake Idols installed in the disputed place. It is stated that some of the Idols have been destroyed and defaced by the party respondents. Despite the order, party respondents continued to prevent the petitioners from performing the religious rituals and hence the petitioners filed Ext.P5 complaint before the 2 nd respondent. The petitioners, therefore, plead that respondents 1, 2 and 8 may be directed to afford sufficient police protection to the petitioners and members of their family to conduct their worship and rituals at the disputed site without any let or hindrance by the party respondents or their henchmen.
3. Notice was served on the respondents. Senior Government Pleader appeared for respondents 1, 2 and 8. The party respondents appeared through Counsel. We heard the WP(C) 32832/2016 3 Government Pleader, and the Counsel for the petitioners as well as the party respondents. Documents perused.
4. The dispute is regarding a piece of property, where certain Idols are installed and the petitioners claim it to be their Sarpakavu, where they regularly worship and light lamps as well as perform rituals. The respondents 3 and 4 have claimed exclusive right, title and possession over that property and have challenged the rights of the petitioners to offer their prayers there. Status quo has been directed to be maintained by the Munsiff's Court and the said order has been upheld in appeal by the Sub Court, Ottappalam. When the matter is pending before the civil court for consideration, it is not appropriate for this Court to let the police authorities interfere and protect the rights of the petitioners, who are plaintiffs in the suit. In case there is any violation of the orders of the Court, the petitioners have an equally efficacious remedy to approach the civil court against the party respondents. But, they have not resorted to that remedy available to them. Instead, they have sought interference of this Court to direct the police authorities to afford police protection. We do not intend to give any positive WP(C) 32832/2016 4 direction to the police authorities. There is also no report regarding any breach of law and order. It is their duty to remain vigilant and maintain law and order even without any specific direction from us. With these observations, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs.
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge ASHOK MENON Judge dkr