Jage Varghese vs Superintendent Of Police (Rural) ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4636 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

     TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.25564 OF 2020(U)


PETITIONER:

               JAGE VARGHESE
               AGED 48 YEARS
               S/O. CHACKO VARGHESE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
               AIRANALUUR, PUNALUR EDAMON KOLLAM-691 309.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
               SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
               SHRI.ALINT JOSEPH

RESPONDENTS:

      1        SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) KOTTARAKARA
               RURAL SP OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA-691 533.

      2        CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (SHO)
               POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION,
               POOYAPPALLY-691 537.

      3        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
               HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

      4        M/S.NICLAS FOOD CLUB PVT. LTD XV/39 C
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, AJMAL,
               1ST FLOOR MADEENA BUSINESS CENTRE, VANIMAL, CALICUT,
               KERALA 673 506.


               SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.25564 OF 2020(U)

                                    2



                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding

the 2nd respondent Station House Officer of Pooyappally Police

Station or any officer under him not to interfere and harass the

petitioner in the civil dispute with the 4th respondent.

2. On 20.11.2020, when this writ petition came up for

admission, notice before admission was ordered to the

respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for

respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to

the 4th respondent.

3. On 25.01.2021, the learned Government Pleader, on

instructions, submitted that the 4th respondent has not made any

complaint against the petitioner. The name of the Civil Police

Officer, who alleged to have contacted the petitioner, asking him to

be present in Pooyappally Police Station on 18.11.2020, is also not

disclosed in the writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

Despite service of none appears for the 4th respondent. WP(C).No.25564 OF 2020(U)

5. On 25.01.2021, this Court has noted the specific stand

taken by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, that the

4th respondent has not made any complaint against the petitioner.

6. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, [(1988) 5 SCC

434] the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a

point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party

raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove

such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition

and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts

are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not

annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case

may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held

further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the

Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter

affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement,

the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ

petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the

evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to

it.

In the writ petition, the petitioner has not stated the name of WP(C).No.25564 OF 2020(U)

the Police Officer who alleged to have contacted the petitioner,

asking him to be present in Pooyappally Police Station on

18.11.2020. The only allegation in para 9 of the writ petition is that

the 2nd respondent in unnecessarily interfering in the civil dispute

between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. In the absence of

any specific pleadings, this Court finds no reason to proceed with

the writ petition further and the writ petition is accordingly closed.

Sd/-

                                        ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JV                                              JUDGE
 WP(C).No.25564 OF 2020(U)






                                APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                  A TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED
                            16.10.2020 GENERATED BY THE 4TH
                            RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2                  A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED
                            16.11.2020 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.