Raveendran Nair vs The District Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 21374 Ker

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943

                              WP(C) NO. 17114 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

               RAVEENDRAN NAIR
               AGED 67 YEARS
               S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, KOMATH HOUSE, UNNIKULAM VILLAGE,
               EKAROOL DESOM, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
               (OORALAN, SREE ODAKKALIKAVU BHAGAVATHIKAVU, EKAROOL,
               UNNIKULAM, KINALUR AMSOM DESOM, THAMARASSERY TALUK)

               BY ADVS.
               K.P.SUDHEER
               C.K.SHERIN



RESPONDENTS:

     1         THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
               OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE-673 004

     2         CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
               BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, BALUSSERY-673 612, KOZHIKODE
               DISTRICT

     3         DAMODHARAN,
               S/O. KUNHANDY, PUTHALATH HOUSE, KANNADI POYIL, BALUSSERY,
               KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673 612

     4         KUNHIKELU
               S/O. OONJHAN, PUTHALATH HOUSE, KANNADI POYIL, BALUSSERY,
               KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673 612

               BY ADV J.ABHILASH




               SRI.E C.BINEESH - GP




      THIS     WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON

29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                        2
W.P.(C)No. 17114 of 2021




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021.

The petitioner is stated to be the "Ooralan" of

the "Sree Odakkkalikavu Bhagavathy Kavu" at Tamarasseri

and alleges that respondents 3 and 4 are trespassing into

the properties of the said Temple in flagrant violation of

Ext.P2 order of injunction issued by the District Court,

Kozhikode, on 27.04.2021. The petitioner says that faced

with such conduct from the part of the party respondents,

he preferred Ext.P4 petition before the 2 nd respondent,

followed by Ext.P5, seeking protection; but that since no

action was taken thereon, he has been constrained to

approach this Court through this writ petition.

2. Sri.J.Abhilash - learned counsel appearing for

the 3rd and 4th respondents, controverted every allegation

W.P.(C)No. 17114 of 2021

made by the petitioner in this writ petition against his

clients, saying that they had never tried or trespass into

the property of the Temple and that these unfounded

accusations have been made by the petitioner with

extremely confutative and questionable motives. He added

that his clients are defending the Suit, in which Ext.P2

order has been issued, before the Civil Court appropriately

and alleged that the attempt of the petitioner is only to

frustrate the same, by obtaining orders from this Court.

He concluded by saying that his clients have not acted and

will not act contrary to law; and thus contended that the

petitioner is not entitled to seek any order of protection

from this Court.

3. Sri.E.C.Bineesh - the learned Government

Pleader, submitted that in implicit compliance of the

interim order dated 27.08.2021, the police have ensured

that the life of the petitioner and the property of the

W.P.(C)No. 17114 of 2021

Temple have been adequately and effectively protected.

4. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is

evident that, as per the party respondents, the allegations

made against them are not genuine; while the petitioner

speaks to the contrary.

5. I do not propose to, in any manner, deal with the

internecine disputes of the parties on their merits because

a Civil suit is, admittedly, pending before the competent

Civil Court.

6. That said, the police are only obligated in law to

ensure that the lives of the parties and the properties of

the Temple are adequately protected.

In the above perspective, I allow this writ petition and

direct the 2nd respondent - Sub Inspector of Police to

ensure that the lives of the petitioner, as well as that of

respondents 3 and 4, are adequately protected against

each other and that neither of them take law into their own

W.P.(C)No. 17114 of 2021

hands or cause any act which is contrary to law. The said

respondent will also ensure that the properties of the

Temple in question are requisitely protected and that no

one, including the party respondents, are allowed to

breach peace in any manner in future.

Needless to say, none of the observations and

directions herein will be construed by any party as being to

fetter or trammel any of the rival contentions before the

Civil Court and they will be at liberty to impel and pursue

the same as per law.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Raj/29.10.2021.

W.P.(C)No. 17114 of 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17114/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF TRUST DEED REGISTERED AS DOC.NO.83/2015 DATED 23.4.2015 OF THAMARASSERY SRO Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.4.2021 IN CMP NO.87/2021 IN OS (UNNUMBERED) PASSED BY DISTRICT COURT, (VACATION COURT) KOZHIKODE Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.85/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOYILANDY Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 05.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 5.8.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 16.8.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT