Jugfer vs Sainudeen on 16 October, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20068 of 2008(L)


1. JUGFER, S/O.SAINUDEEN, AGED 42 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SAINUDEEN, S/O.BAVA MUZALIAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ABDUL REHIMAN, AGED 57 YEARS,

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.C.DEVASIA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :16/10/2008

 O R D E R
                       K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &

                           M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

                    -----------------------------------------

                      W.P.(C) NO.20068 OF 2008-L

                    -----------------------------------------

                         Dated 16th October, 2008.

                                JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court, alleging that

respondents 1 and 2 and their supporters are trying to widen an existing

pathway, which is passing through his property. He moved the civil

court and obtained an order of injunction against them. But, violating

that order, they are trying to widen the said pathway. When the

petitioner attempted to prevent it, he was threatened. He apprehends

physical violence against his person. So, the petitioner filed Ext.P4

representation before the police and thereafter, this writ petition is

filed, seeking effective protection to his life and property.

2. Since the petitioner has obtained interim order from the civil

court, if he requires police protection, he can move that court itself.

The said court has power to direct the police to assist the petitioner to

WPC 20068/08 2

enforce its interim order. In view of the said remedy available to the

petitioner, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Further, threat to his

life emanates only when he visit the disputed property and resist the

actions of respondents 1 and 2. There is yet another reason to dismiss

this Writ Petition, as notice has not been served on respondents 1 and 2

and notices sent to them were returned, stating that they are not known.

In view of the above position, the Writ Petition is dismissed without

prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to approach

the civil court for appropriate reliefs.

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

Nm/