Jessy Varghese vs Superintendent Of Police on 20 August, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 13144 of 2007(M)


1. JESSY VARGHESE, AGED 60 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DY.S.P., THIRUVALLA.

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

5. C.N.MATHEW,

6. BIJU YOHANNAN @ LONACHAN,

7. JOHNY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.HARIDAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :20/08/2007

 O R D E R
                K.Balakrishnan Nair & Harun-Ul-Rashid, JJ.
                -----------------------------------------------------------
                         W.P.(C).No.13144 of 2007-M
                -----------------------------------------------------------

                  Dated, this the 20th day of August, 2007

                                     JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair,J.

The petitioner is working abroad. This writ petition is filed

through her mother, the Power of Attorney Holder. She is having 80 cents

of land in Perumpatty Village in Pathanamthitta District. When there was

threat of trespass from respondents 5 to 7, she moved an obtained Exhibit

P2 judgment and Exhibit P3 decree against them. The decree demarcates

the boundary of her property. Exhibit P3(a) sketch attached to the decree

shows the demarcation of boundary. By the decree, the defendants therein,

who are respondents 5 to 7 herein, have been restrained from trespassing

into the property or cutting and removing trees.

2. Now it is submitted by the petitioner that the party

respondents are trying to cut and remove the valuable trees in the property

of the petitioner in violation of the judgment of the Munsiff’s Court and,

therefore, she seeks protection for enjoyment of the property and for

restraining the respondents from cutting and removing the valuable trees

from the property. Claiming this relief, she has moved the District

Superintendent of Police by filing Ext.P4 representation dated 9th April,

2007. Thereafter the writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to
4 to grant adequate protection for the properties of the petitioner and

W.P.(C).No.13144/2007-M – 2 –

her parents and also to render effective protection to the life of the
petitioner, parents and their employees”

3. If the order of injunction is violated and damage or waste

is caused, the petitioner has remedies before the competent civil and

criminal Courts. Police protection for anticipated violation of civil Court’s

injunction order cannot be granted. Though in the relief portion of the writ

petition the petitioner has prayed for protection for her life and her parents,

there is no such prayer in Exhibit P4. Further, the petitioner, who is abroad,

cannot be physically harmed by the party respondents.

4. In the result, we feel that no mandamus should be issued

to the police. But, this does not mean that the petitioner is not entitled to

get protection to her property or life of her parents. If anything untoward

happens, she can move the police as well as other forums for appropriate

reliefs.

The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.

K.Balakrishnan Nair
Judge

Harun-Ul-Rashid
Judge
vku/-