IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO.17650 OF 2022
PETITIONER :-
DOMINIC.N.A., AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.LATE ANTONY, NELLICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KOCHALMADAPPATTU ROAD, MANJUMMEL,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 501
BY ADVS.
P.P.BIJU
S.R.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS :-
1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (ERNAKULAM RURAL)
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 101
2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KALADY POLICE STATION, KALADY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 574
3 VINCENT
CHINJU CATERING, CHERANELLOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 544
BY ADV P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
BY SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.17650 OF 2022
-: 2 :-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such writ, order or direction commanding the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide effective and adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his employees.
(ii) To declare that the 3rd respondent and his men have absolutely no manner of right to obstruct the petitioner from removing pandal materials from the St.Thomas Church Premises, Malayattoor."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is running an event management business and that he had set up a pandal in the premises of the St.Thomas Church, Malayattoor. It is submitted that when the petitioner went to remove the pandal from the premises, the 3 rd respondent and his men are restraining the petitioner and obstructing the removal of the pandal. It is stated that they had also taken possession of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-07-BY-3231 which belongs to the petitioner. Though Exts.P1 and P2 complaints were preferred before respondents 1 and 2, no action has been taken thereon.
4. The learned Government Pleader submits, on WP(C) NO.17650 OF 2022 -: 3 :- instructions, that no copies of any complaints submitted by the petitioner had been received either by the 1 st or the 2nd respondent and that the matter has not gained the attention of the respondents. It is submitted that there is no receipt for any complaint produced in the writ petition also.
5. The 3rd respondent has placed a counter affidavit on record. It is stated that the 3 rd respondent had conducted catering service in connection with the petitioner's wife's sister's wedding about two years back and the petitioner owes an amount of Rs.1,39,000/- to the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner had handed over possession of a mini goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-07-BY-3231 to the 3 rd respondent for using for six months in discharge of the debt. It is stated that the said vehicle had thereafter been taken away by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent found it lying at Malayattoor Church, used to unload the petitioner's pandal materials. It is stated that the 3 rd respondent had complained to the police and with the help of the police, the vehicle was secured. It is submitted that the 3 rd respondent has no intention to obstruct the petitioner from removing of his pandal materials and that he had tried only to secure the vehicle which was pawned to him.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there WP(C) NO.17650 OF 2022 -: 4 :- are no documents whatsoever produced by the 3rd respondent in support of his contention that the vehicle had been pawned to the 3rd respondent or that there was any complaint raised before the police.
7. I notice that the contention between the parties is in the nature of a monetary dispute and that the police cannot be involved in the same. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, that Exts.P1 and P2 complaints have not been received by respondents 1 and 2.
In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayers as sought for cannot be granted. In case the parties have any dispute, it is for them to resolve the same in accordance with law. If the petitioner has any complaint with regard to removal of his pandal materials, it is for the petitioner to raise such complaints before the Station House Officer, which shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/14.6.2022 WP(C) NO.17650 OF 2022 -: 5 :- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17650/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH EMAIL Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH EMAIL