IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15446 of 2010(E)
1. ALPHONSA.C.G., D/O.GEORGE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOSEPH SHIBU, S/O.AVARACHAN,
... Respondent
2. NADUVILETHARA SURESH,
3. K.K.MURALEEDHARAN,
4. SURESH BABU, LOCAL COMMITTEE
5. JAISON P.JOSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS
For Respondent :SRI.T.MADHU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :09/06/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.15446 of 2010-E
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 9th day of June, 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 or order or direction commanding the 6th respondent
to afford adequate and effective police protection to the
life and property of the petitioner.
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ or order or direction commanding 6th respondent to
take necessary steps for affording adequate protection to
the property of the petitioner for constructing ridge/chira
in her property.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as
follows:– Petitioner a divorcee with a daughter purchased 54
cents in Kumalanghi village. Out of the same she sold 5 cents
to the Ist respondent. The property of the petitioner is
waterlogged and fish cultivation is being conducted. When the
petitioner started construction of a ridge in her property the
Ist respondent raised objection. Petitioner filed suit before the
Munsiff Court, Kochi for injunction. Ext.P3 is the interlocutory
order of injunction. But, respondents 2 to 5 and their
henchmen entered the property of the petitioner and
obstructed the workers from constructing the ridge. Hence
WPC 15446/2010 -2-
the writ petition.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Ist
respondent. There is also counter by the 4th respondent.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Ext.P3 is only an exparte interlocutory order. It is pending
final decision in the matter. It is submitted by the Ist
respondent that the matter is coming up for hearing shortly.
It is submitted that respondents 3 and 4 have already filed
application to implead in the suit. In such circumstances, we
do not think that it is appropriate for this Court to interfere
with the matter particularly at this stage. Leaving it open to
the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate
remedies we dispose of the writ petition. We, however, make
it clear that if the petitioner complains about the commission
of any cognizable offence by the party respondents action
shall be taken on the same in accordance with law by the
official respondents.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS