IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13997 of 2010(Y)
1. SAJI MATHEW,S/O.MATHEW,AGED 38 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,SPECIAL GRADE GRAMA
3. EDIMANNIKKAL VALSAMMA W/O.PAPPACHAN,
4. ETTIKKIL BABY @ PHILIP,S/O.CHANDI,
5. K.P.RADHAKRISHANAN, S/O.KUNCHIRAMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.JOSEPH
For Respondent :SRI.P.BABU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :07/12/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.13997 of 2010-Y
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010.
JUDGMENT
In this writ petition the petitioner seeks for a direction to the Sub
Inspector of Police to see that the injunction order granted by the Civil
Court as per Ext.P2 is obeyed by respondents 3 to 5.
2. The petitioner has filed the suit O.S. No.29/2010 before the Sub
Court, Payyannur seeking for various reliefs. Ext.P2 is the copy of the
order of interim injunction granted by the civil court restraining the
defendants in the suit from conducting the quarrying operation by use of
explosives and without proper licence. It is the case of the petitioner that in
violation of the direction issued by the civil court, respondents 3 to 5
continued the illegal quarrying operation which compelled the petitioner to
approach the police by filing Ext.P3 representation. It is averred in the writ
petition that the police is not taking any action in the matter.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 and
learned counsel for the Panchayat.
4. The counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 to 5 reveals that two
other civil suits, viz.. O.S. Nos. 452/2006 and 564/2009 are pending before
wpc 13997/2010 2
the Munsiff’s Court, Thaliparamba for the same relief. The latter one is
filed by the father as well as wife of the petitioner. It is the case of the
respondents that suppressing the pendency of these two civil suits, the
petitioner filed the present suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the pendency of the other
suits.
5. The contesting respondents have filed Ext.R3(d) application to
vacate the interim order of injunction. It is also their case that they are not
violating the injunction order and are not using explosives. But they are
extracting rock only by use of man power. Learned counsel for the
Panchayat submitted that the Panchayat has not issued any licence for
quarrying.
6. Evidently, there is dispute between the parties as to whether there
is use of explosives or not. Apart from that, the police cannot be an arbiter
in the civil disputes. If the petitioner wants assistance of the police for
enforcement of the order of injunction, he could have approached the civil
court by invoking the remedy under Rule 151 C.P.C. For the alleged
violation of the injunction order also, the petitioner has got a remedy under
Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court, at this stage, will not be
wpc 13997/2010 3
justified in issuing a direction, especially as the order issued is only an
exparte order and the contesting respondents have already filed an
application to vacate the injunction order. It is made clear that the parties
can approach the civil court itself for adjudication of their disputes and the
writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/
