Vallath Sulaiman vs The District Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 20940 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 16053 OF 2021

PETITIONERS:


    1       VALLATH SULAIMAN
            AGED 48 YEARS
            S/O.VALLATH PAREED, VALLATH HOUSE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
            DISTRICT, PIN-676102.
    2       HASEENA,
            AGED 38 YEARS
            W/O.VALLATH SULAIMAN, VALLATH HOUSE, TIRUR,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676102.
            BY ADV E.S.ASHRAF


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
            MALAPPURAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
            MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505.
    2       THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
            OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
            MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505.
    3       THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
            TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-
            676101.
    4       RAMLA
            AGED 52 YEARS
            D/O.MUHAMMED, PUTHIAKATH KINATTINGAL HOUSE, VAKKAD
            P.O., VETTOM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-
            676502.
    5       ANEESH
            AGED 26 YEARS
            S/O.RAMLA, PUTHIAKATH KINATTINGAL HOUSE, VAKKAD,
            TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676502.
           BY ADV K.P.SUDHEER
 W.P.C (No). 16053 of 2021             2


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI E C BINEESH - GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.C (No). 16053 of 2021              3




                               JUDGMENT

The petitioners claim that their right over the

pathway, which is the sole access to their residential house, is

being obstructed by respondents 4 to 6, even though there is an

order from the competent Civil Court against them.

2. Respondents 4 to 6, on the other hand, assert

that they have not violated the order issued by the competent

Civil Court, which mandates both the parties to maintain status

quo with respect to the pathway; but that petitioners are

violating it by committing waste thereon and in dumping garbage

and such other activities on it, to their vexation.

3. While so, the petitioners allege that respondents

4 to 7 have attacked them and that they have approached the

police, which have led to an FIR being registered; and

consequently, that they were forced to seek police protection.

They say that, however, since no action was taken by the police

to grant them protection, they have been constrained to

approach this Court.

4. I have heard Shri. E.S. Ashraf, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner; Shri. K.P. Sudheer, learned counsel

appearing for respondents 4 to 7 and Shri. E.C. Bineesh, learned

Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

5. The respective learned counsel for the parties

stuck to their positions before; and it is therefore, clear that the

real disputes between them are with respect to the use of the

pathway in question. It is also admitted that the order by the

competent Civil Court mandates both sides to maintain status

quo.

6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that whatever

be the disputes between the parties, they cannot be allowed to

take law into their own hands or to cause obstruction to each

other, in violation of the order issued by the competent Civil

Court.

7. I, therefore, asked Shri. E.C. Bineesh - learned

Government Pleader, as to if any instances of violation have

been brought to the notice of the police, to which, he submitted

that the police are keeping a close vigil in area in question, to

ensure that both sides do not cause any harm to each other or

cause obstruction to the use of the pathway in any manner

contrary to law.

Taking note of afore submissions, this Court

cannot evaluate or adjudicate the rival civil disputes between the

parties, since it is pending before the competent Civil Court, I

deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition with the following

directions.

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the

second respondent - Sub Inspector of Police, is directed to

ensure that petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 do not cause any

threat or violence or intimidation against each other and further

that they are not allowed to breach peace or violate law in any

manner whatsoever. The said respondents will also ensure that

both the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 are allowed to use the

pathway without any obstruction being caused against each

other, subject to the orders to be issued by the competent Civil

Court in future.

Since it is admitted that the order of status quo, issued

by the competent Civil Court, is still in force, the police will

ensure that the parties do not violate it in any manner and for

such purpose they shall also act as and when any complaint is

made by either of them with respect to its breach.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Raj/06.10.2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16053/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.No.2506/2018 IN O.S.No.351/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2020 OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, TIRUR IN CMA 34/2019.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 08.12.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 01.12.2020.

Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 02.12.2020.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21.04.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.