IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21418 of 2009(V)
1. DHANUSHKODI, AGED 38,
... Petitioner
2. PARAMASIVAN, AGED 36,
3. NATARAJAN, (DORAI) NATTARAJAN,
Vs
1. M.VIJAYAKUMAR, COMMITTEE PRESIDENT
... Respondent
2. K.RAJANIKANTH, SECRETARY,
3. M.SEKHARAN, MANNADIYAR,
4. NJANASEKHARAN M.S.,
5. R.GOPALAKRISHNAN, COMMITTEE MEMBER
6. SUBRAMANYAN.S., MANNADIYAR, KARAYOOR
7. ANJUNAD IKYASABHA, MARAYOOR GRAMAM
8. SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT,
9. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
10. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
11. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI
For Respondent :SRI.JOICE GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :18/02/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 21418 of 2009 V
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs.
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writs direction or orders commanding
respondents 8 to 11 to enquire into the petitioners’
Ext.P5 and enquire into the offences against the
petitioners committed by respondents 1 to 7 and by
their supporters;
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding
respondents 8 to 11 to promulgate law declaring
Ooruvilakku or ex-communication as grave offences
and charge sheet cases against respondents 1 to 7
W.P.(C).No. 21418 of 2009
2
and against their supporters for committing offences and
declaring Ooruvilakku against the petitioners;
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writs, directions or orders directing
respondents 8 to 11 to render sufficient police protection
to the petitioners and to their family members to thwart
any attempted further offences by respondents 1 to 7 and
by their supporters.”
2. Briefly the case of the petitioners is as follows. The
petitioners were ex-communicated by respondents 1 to 7 and by their
supporters. There is an allegation about violation of Articles 19 and
21 of the Constitution and other fundamental rights.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1
to 7, in which it is, inter alia, stated as follows.
“5. It is submitted that the answering respondents
are living in Marayoor, Kanthalloor and Karayoor
Gramams in Marayoor and Kanthalloor Panchayats in
W.P.(C).No. 21418 of 2009
3
Idukki District. The predecessors of the answering
respondents migrated to the said places before 400 years.
The people living in the gramam are following certain
rituals and practices as thereon. The committees duly
elected by the people of the Gramams are managing its
affairs. The committee is arranging water supply for
household use and irrigation. The pathways leading to the
Gramam are being maintained by the committee. A
watcher by name ‘Dantalkaran’ has also been appointed
by the committee. The management of the temple in the
Gramam including the payment of salary to the ‘Poojari’
is being done by the committee. The expense for
providing the said amenities including electricity charges
are being met by the committee by centuries. But the
petitioners have not been co-operating with the other
people of the Gramam in their collective efforts to arrange
minimum amenities for life. These respondents are not in
any way interfering with the lives of the petitioners by
imposing restrictions or making obstructions. The
petitioners are opted to lead a separate life apart from that
of the community. The members of the Gramam are not
in any way concerned about the petitioners as they have
opted themselves to lead a separate life and have a
separate entity.
W.P.(C).No. 21418 of 2009
4
In reply to the averments in the writ petition, it is
submitted that these respondents had not excommunicated
the petitioners as alleged. As mentioned earlier, we are
not in any way obstructing the pathway, right to purchase
and right to employment of the petitioners. These
respondents has never been charge sheeted on the basis of
Ext.P1 FIR. The said crime was registered on the basis of
a complaint filed by the wife of the 3rd petitioner against
some other persons on the basis of an alleged incident
took place on 13.2.2009. The allegations in Ext.P1 FIR is
not in any way connected with these respondents as we
have not been interrogated or charge sheeted in
connection with the alleged commission of offence, to the
best of our information. These respondents did not issue
Ext.P2 notice as alleged. Ext.P2 is a communication
allegedly issued by the Secretary of Ooru Committee,
Marayoor Panchayat. Exts.P3 and P4 notices are also not
published by these respondents for excommunicating the
petitioners. Ext.P5 is only a news item which contains
untrue and imaginary facts. Ext.P5 news items were
published at the instance of the 1st petitioner who has been
trying to tarnish the community in front of the general
public.”
W.P.(C).No. 21418 of 2009
5
4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for respondents 4 to 7 and the learned Government Pleader.
5. Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 submits that they are
not connected with Exts.P2 and P3. In view of the stand taken by
respondents 4 to 7, which we record, we direct respondents 9 and 10
that in case the petitioners are obstructed by respondents 1 to 7 in the
matter of travelling, purchasing goods from shop, getting employment,
they will provide adequate protection to the petitioners against
respondents 1 to 7.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm