IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37160 of 2010(T)
1. DR.M.A.JOHN, POLY DENTAL SPECIALISTS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. DR.MATHEW PULICKEN,
5. DR.MATHEW PULICKEN (JR),
6. DOMANIC MATHEW, EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
7. SANTHOSH, OTTAPPALLY HOUSE,
8. JACOB, ADITHYA TOWERS,
For Petitioner :SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS
For Respondent :SRI.BIJU M.JOHN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :23/12/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.C.No.37160 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of December 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.JOSEPH,J
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
i) to issue a writ of mandamus or writ order
or direction compelling respondents 1 to 3 to
give adequate police protection for the
petitioner and his men to carry on the work of
Dental Speciality Hospital in the present
premises.
ii) To issue adequate police protection for the
ingress and aggress of the petitioner and his
men to the Poly Dental Super Specialty at
Kottayam and for their life and property.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. The petitioner is conducting a Dental Super Specialty
center at Kottayam in the 4th respondent’s building from 1987.
Most modern machineries, generators and other equipments
were installed spending many lakhs of Rupees. There is a
proposal to start a hospital by the 4th respondent; but that did not
W.P.C.No.37160 of 2010 2
succeed. Respondents 4 and 5 attempted to evict the petitioner
by using goondas and criminals. The petitioner filed
O.S.No.308/2008. The 4th respondent filed a statement that he
has no intention to forcibly evict the petitioner. Thereafter, it is
stated that, on the instigation of respondents 4 and 5, the 6th
respondent, a known goonda, who was in detention under the
Goonda Act, threatened the petitioner and attempted to take
forcible steps with the help of the 7th respondent. There are
further allegations and the petitioner, apprehending inaction,
has come before us.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned counsel for respondents 4, 5 and 7. The learned
counsel for respondents 4, 5 and 7 would submit that there is no
such move to evict the petitioner by force and the 5th respondent
was in fact out of station till 13/12/2010. Respondents 4 and 5
have entered into a sale agreement and it is stated that there is
no move to cause any forcible eviction of the petitioner.
5. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a tenant.
Therefore, the petitioner can be evicted only as per law. If,
contrary to the submissions made by respondents 4 and 5, the
W.P.C.No.37160 of 2010 3
petitioner is constrained to complain before the 3rd respondent of
any attempts to forcibly evict the petitioner or prevent the
ingress and aggress of the petitioner and his men to the Poly
Dental Super Specialty at Kottayam, the 3rd respondent shall look
into it and if the complaint is found to be genuine, he shall
provide protection to the petitioner for doing his business in the
tenanted premises in accordance with law as against the party
respondents.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
W.P.C.No.37160 of 2010 4
W.P.C.No.37160 of 2010 5
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
30/082010