IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4517 of 2008(K)
1. V.KUNJAMMA, W/O.LATE SANKARAN,
... Petitioner
2. K.PADMINI, W/O.BHASKARAN,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
4. K.GOPALAN, S/O.KANNAN MANIYANI,
5. KUNHIRAMAN.C., S/O.C.KRISHNAN,
6. C.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMAN,
7. ANILKUMAR, S/O.KUMARAN,
8. B.K.KRISHNAN, S/O.B.K.KOMAN,
9. VINAYAKUMAR.C., S/O.C.KUNHIRAMAN,
10. A.V.SASI, S/O.A.V.NARAYANAN,
11. P.SURESH, S/O.P.C.VASU,
12. PAKKEERAN KARANAVAR,
13. C.RAMAN, S/O.RAMAN, R/AT. DO.
14. THANKARAJAN, S/O.AYYACHAYI, R/AT. DO.
15. KUMARAN, S/O.THANKARAJAN, R/AT. DO.
16. C.RAMAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, R/AT. DO.
17. SIBI, S/O.VARKEY, NEERKKAYA HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
For Respondent :SMT.C.G.PREETHA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :10/07/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
W.P.(C)NO. 4517 OF 2008
============================
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2008
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair,J.
The petitioners are the persons, who have been
granted permits by the competent authority to dig bore
well in their respective properties. Exts.P1 and P2 are the
permits. When they tried to dig the bore well on the
strength of those permits, respondents 4 to 17 obstructed
the same. The petitioners point out that respondents 5
and 10 had earlier filed a suit before the Munsiff Court,
Kasaragod in which an injunction was sought against the 2nd
petitioner and another prohibiting them from digging any
bore well in their respective premises. The said injunction
application was dismissed.
WPC.4517/2008 -2-
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the suit itself was later dismissed. So, the
same party respondents have no right to obstruct the
construction of the bore well. Therefore, the petitioners
have moved the police for necessary protection by filing
Exts.P4 and P5 representations. Since the police did not
take any action, this writ petition is filed seeking
appropriate reliefs.
3. Though notice to respondents 8,9,13,14,15 and 16
has been served, they have not entered appearance.
Respondents 5,7, and 10 have filed a counter affidavit
resisting the prayers in the writ petition. They also pointed
out that the point raised by the petitioners is covered by the
decision of this Court in Krishnan v. Superintendent of
Police, 2008(1)K.L.T.892.
The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to
distinguish the said decision on facts. In that case there
was no order of the civil court, it is pointed out. Going by
WPC.4517/2008 -3-
Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 representations, we notice that
obstruction simplicitor alone is pleaded in them. So, the
proper remedy for the petitioners is to move the civil court
and try to get an order of injunction. Further, the police
have no authority to peruse the papers presented by the
petitioners and take a decision that they have the right to
dig the bore well and based on that finding extend
necessary protection to the petitioners. In view of the
above position and also the principles laid down in
Krishnan v. Superintendent of Police, 2008(1)
KLT.892, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to
the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move
the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE
M.C. HARI RANI
ks. JUDGE
WPC.4517/2008 -4-
ks.