IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3078 of 2010(H)
1. KUTHRUTHODU NELLULPADAKA KARSHAKA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NAYARAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SURESH JOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :05/02/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 3078 of 2010 H
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner, Kuthruthodu Nellulpadaka Karshaka
Sangham, seeks a direction to the second respondent to give
police protection to the petitioner to conduct prawn cultivation
in their paddy fields.
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The
petitioner is an association formed by the agriculturists near the
canal called Kuthruthode. Members of the association are jointly
leasing out the paddy field for prawn cultivation. The further
case of the petitioner is that the first respondent, Panchayat, is
demanding fees for using the water from this canal for acqua
culture. The petitioner filed a suit for injunction before the
W.P.(C).No. 3078 of 2010
2
Munsiff Court, Kochi, which was decreed in favour of the first
respaond4ent.
3. The petitioner has filed A.S.No. 72 of 2009 before the Sub
Court, Kochi, which is posted to 15.2.2010 for hearing. It is the further
case of the petitioner that due to enemity, the first respondent is trying
to destroy one chira in the thodu. Recently, on 27.1.2010 the first
respondent with their henchmen tried to destroy the chira and
threatened the Secretary of the Sangham. Accordingly the petitioner
filed Ext.P1 complaint.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is to be
noticed that the first respondent is a Panchayat. Admittedly the civil
suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Of course, the
petitioner has filed an appeal and an application for temporary
injunction. It may be true that the matter is pending consideration
before the Appellate Court. In such circumstances, we do not think it
appropriate to consider the issuance of a writ of police protection as
the issues are essentially in substantial dispute and also currently being
W.P.(C).No. 3078 of 2010
3
considered by the civil Court. Therefore, we decline to grant the relief
sought for by the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
appeal and the petition for temporary injunction are pending and they
may be directed to be disposed of. The appeal is of the year 2009. In
view of the urgency expressed by the petitioner, while dismissing the
Writ Petition we direct the Sub Court, Kochi, before which the
application for temporary injunction is pending, to consider and
dispose of the same at the earliest.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm