Kerala High Court
Vinod Raghavan vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 10155 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
1 VINOD RAGHAVAN
AGED 46 YEARS
SON OF RAGHAVAN, THATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALIYAKOTTARAM,
NJANDUPARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686577
2 SWAPNA SREEDHATH
AGED 49 YEARS
WIFE OF LATE SRI. SREEDATH, MOOZHIYIL HOUSE, SWAPNA
VIHARA, THRIKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANASSERRY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686105
BY ADV LUKE J CHIRAYIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM- KUMILY ROAD,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686002
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOKKAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY,
KERALA, PIN - 686555
4 V.M. GEORGE
AGED 74 YEARS
RESIDING AT THEKKEVAYALUMKAL HOUSE, ELANGULAM P.O.,
ELANGULAM VILLAGE, ELANGULAM KARA, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686522
5 SAJIMON
AGED 52 YEARS
SON OF SRI. GOPALAN, MUDHANTHIYANIYIL HOUSE,
KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., AANIKKADU VADAKKUM BHAGOM KARA,
CHENGALAM EAST VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
682315
6 SHAJI
WP(C) NO.10155 of 2024
2
AGED 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT THEKKEVAYALUMKAL HOUSE, ELANGULAM P.O.,
ELANGULAM VILLAGE, ELANGULAM KARA, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686522
SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM, FOR R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.10155 of 2024
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners say that the 2 nd among them is the owner of the property and that 1st among them had entered into an agreement with her, for the purpose of cutting and removing certain trees standing thereon. They say that, however, for no tenable reason, respondents 4 to 6 are obstructing the same and that they have intimidated them with threats and violence, if they attempt to do so.
2. The petitioners say that there are no disputes with respect to the property or the trees, but that the respondents are engaging in obstruction, making untenable claims, which cannot be acceded to. They say that they therefore, preferred Ext.P2 complaint before the police, but that since no action has been taken thereon, they have been constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition. WP(C) NO.10155 of 2024 4
3. Pertinently, in response, to the afore submissions of the petitioners, as made by their learned counsel- Sri.Luke J.Chirayil, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent - T.I.Abdul Salam, submitted that his client is a lawyer, who has no reason to cause any obstruction or make any threat to the petitioner, as alleged. He submitted that the imputations are extremely mischievous with other intent; and therefore, that this writ petition against him is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. I notice from the files that even though summons to respondents 5 and 6 have been served, there is no appearance on their behalf, nor are they represented through counsel before this Court.
5. The learned Government Pleader - Sri.P.M.Shameer, submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner against the 4th respondent WP(C) NO.10155 of 2024 5 have not been found to be true, though investigations are still continuing. He submitted that, however, there is no obstruction to the petitioners in carrying out any legal activity in the property of the 2nd respondent and that the police will ensure sufficient protection to them during such.
Taking note of the afore submissions and recording those of Sri.T.I.Abdul Salam, made on behalf of the 4th respondent, I allow this writ petition directing the police to ensure that the law and order is maintained and that the petitioners are subjected to no threat or intimidation by any person, when they continue to carry on activities in terms of Ext.P1 Agreement, provided they commit no violation of law and act within the statutory prescriptions.
As far as respondents 5 and 6 are concerned, if they have any tenable disputes against the WP(C) NO.10155 of 2024 6 petitioners, they are left with liberty to impel them before the competent Forum/Court; for which purpose, all contentions in that regard are left open.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SAS JUDGE WP(C) NO.10155 of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10155/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 05.01.2024 ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS HEREIN. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.02.2024 PREFERRED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL RECEIPT HAVING E-MAIL COMMUNICATION FROM [email protected] TO THE E-MAIL ADDRESS:
[email protected]. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 19.02.2024 ISSUED FROM THE E-MAIL ADDRESS:[email protected] TO THE E-
MAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 20.02.2024 ISSUED FROM THE E-MAIL ADDRESS:
[email protected] TO THE E-MAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR CORRECTION DATED 25.02.2024 PREFERRED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR CORRECTION DATED 25.02.2024 PREFERRED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.