IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17918 of 2010(L)
1. RESHMI.K., ADVOCATE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. MOHANAN, AGED 44 YEARS,
4. ARUMUGHAN, AGED 43 YEARS,
5. RENJITH, AGED 33 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ANAND
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :15/06/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 17918 of 2010 L
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner has approached this court seeking the
following reliefs:
i) issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or direction
directing the 2nd respondent to provide
adequate, sufficient and meaningful
protection to the life of the petitioner and
other co-owners of the temple and for the
construction of a compound wall around
the Palakkad Vadavannur Koundan
Kulambu Mariamman Kovil (Temple).
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or direction
directing the 2nd respondent to take
W.P.(C).No. 17918 of 2010
2
immediate and effective steps/action pursuant
to Exts.P2 and P3 in accordance with law.
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The
petitioner is one of the co-owners of the Palakkad, Vadavannur
IKoundan Kulamby Mariyamman Kovil, which is a family temple
and the administration of the temple is managed by the owners of
the temple. No other persons have any role in the management of
the temple. O.S.125 of 2010 is pending before the Munsiff Court,
Chittoor, in which an interim order was also passed.
3. At present some persons under the leadership of
respondents 3 to 5 are forcefully entering the temple premises and
using the temple premises for illegal activities. They have
destroyed the fencing of the temple. The temple authorities
decided to construct a compound wall. It is submitted that
respondents 3 to 5 are threatening the petitioner.
W.P.(C).No. 17918 of 2010
3
4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
5. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that
there is a claim of way. In such circumstances it may not be
appropriate for this court to entertain the matter. We decline to
entertain the writ petition and we relegate the petitioner to
approach the appropriate forum seeking appropriate relief. We
make it clear that if the petitioner complains of commission of
any cognizable offence by respondents 3 to 5, the second
respondent shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm