High Court Kerala High Court

M.K.Raveendran vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
M.K.Raveendran vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 38507 of 2010(K)


1. M.K.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. GIRIJA MANI, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

6. MR.KRISHNA S.GUPTA, S/O. SAKARA GUPTAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :14/01/2011

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT &
                  K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
            -------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C) No. 38507 of 2010-K
            -------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011

                             JUDGMENT

Basant,J.

This writ petition filed on 22/12/10 is coming up for

admission hearing today. The learned counsel for the petitioners

prays for time to produce further documents. We turned down

the request. We request the learned counsel for the petitioners

to make his submission. According to the petitioners, they and

the 6th respondent are siblings. The 6th respondent is allegedly

obstructing the right of the petitioners in respect of the

properties given to them by their father. They are already

before the civil court, it is further submitted.

2. Has the dispute regarding properties been resolved by

the civil court? Admittedly, final orders have not been passed.

Has the civil court passed any interim order? No interim orders

W.P.(C) No. 38507 of 2010 -: 2 :-

have been passed. Why is it that the parties are not seeking

interim orders from the civil court? No satisfactory response is

received. There evidently is a civil dispute between the parties.

That dispute relates to property. The alleged threat to life and

person perceived by the petitioners is a sequel or consequence of

the property dispute. Without and before resolving the property

dispute, no effective relief can be granted to the parties by this

Court invoking the powers under Art.226 of the Constitution.

Such civil dispute between the parties have not obviously been

resolved. We do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in

the prayer for police protection raised in this petition.

3. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with an

observation that the parties must get their civil disputes resolved

in accordance with law.

Sd/-

R. BASANT
(Judge)

Sd/-

                                         K. SURENDRA MOHAN
                                                  (Judge)

Nan/

                //true copy//         P.S. to Judge