Kerala High Court
Shibu P.M vs The Station House Officer on 3 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17354 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SHIBU P.M
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O MOIDEEN,
PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686673.
BY ADVS.
M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686661.
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MUVATUPUZHA, PIN-686661.
3 THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)
ALUVA, PIN-683101. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER)
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
5 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
6 SHAJI P.P.
S/O PAREED, PULICHALY HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY P.O,
MUVATUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686673.
7 ALI MUNDAKKAMATTOM
MUNDAKKAMATTOM HOUSE,
PEZHAKKAPPILLY P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM
WP(C) NO. 17354 OF 2021 2
DISTRICT, PIN-686673.
*8 ADDL. THE PAYIPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
PEZHAKKAPPILLY P. O., PIN - 686 673, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
*ADDL. R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
01.09.2021 IN I.A.1/2021 IN W.P.(C) 17354/21.
BY ADV K.S.ARUN KUMAR
SRI E.C BINEESH- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17354 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he is engaged in the
business of purchase and sale of buffaloes and that
said animals are housed in a property belonging to
him. The petitioner says that even though he is
conducting the business legally and with all
requisite licenses and clearances, respondents 6 and
7 are causing unnecessary hurdles in it and are
meting out threats and intimidation, including
bodily violence.
2. The petitioner says that he has, therefore,
preferred Ext.P4 application before the 1st
respondent - Station House Officer of Muvattupuzha
Police Station, but alleges that no action was taken
thereon by them; thus constraining him to approach
this Court through this writ Petition.
3. I have heard Sri.C.C.Thomas, learned Senior
Counsel, instructed by Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner;
Sri.K.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 6 and 7; Sri.C.A.Navas, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent No.8 - Panchayat and the
learned Government Pleader, Sri.E.C.Bineesh,
appearing for respondents 1 to 5.
4. The learned Government Pleader
Shri.E.C.Bineesh, submitted that, in fact, the
petitioner's business is being carried on in a
property adjoining a School and an Anganwadi, and
that there appears to be some opposition from local
people. He then added that the Police will not,
however, interfere with any civil disputes between
the parties and will ensure that law and order is
maintained effectively.
5. Sri.K.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel for
respondents 6 and 7, commenced his arguments in
opposition to the petitioner's contentions, by
saying that he has obtained no license from the
Panchayat and that his actions are thus illegal and
unlawful. He submitted that, therefore, his clients
have already invoked their remedies, as are
available to them under law; however, adding that
the allegations made against them, that they have
trespassed into the petitioner's property and have
caused physical obstruction to his activities, are
untrue and have been made with gross malafides.
Sri.K.S.Arunkumar prayed that, therefore, this Court
may not entertain this writ petition and leave
liberty to his clients to pursue their appropriate
remedies before the Panchayat and other statutory
Authorities, in terms of law.
6. Sri.C.A.Navas, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the 8th respondent - Panchayat,
submitted that his client has a legitimate suspicion
that petitioner is conducting the business in
violation of Section 311 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act. He submitted that, therefore, the Panchayat
may be given liberty to take appropriate action
against him, if it becomes so warranted.
7. When I consider the afore submissions, it is
clear that even if the petitioner is acting without
the necessary licenses or in violation of law, the
remedy of respondents 6 and 7 is not to take law
into their hands or to trespass into the property or
cause physical obstruction. In fact, as I have
already recorded above, their learned counsel -
Sri.K.S.Arunkumar, undertakes that no such conduct
will be made from them in future.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition
recording the afore undertaking of
Sri.K.S.Arunkumar; however, leaving full liberty to
respondents 6 and 7, as also respondent No.8, to
invoke and initiate any remedy or action that may be
necessary against the petitioner in terms of the
applicable laws.
Needless to say, if there is any act on the part
of respondents 6 and 7 in violation of their
undertaking above, the petitioner will be at liberty
to approach the 1st respondent with an apposite
complaint; in which event, said Authority will
investigate into the same and take necessary action
on it in terms of law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/10.9
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17354/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
09.08.2021 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF
RS.37/-.
Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
07.08.2021 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF
RS.10/-.
Exhibit P3 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CLEANNESS OF THE
SHED AND THE PROPERTY.
Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2
DATED 24.08.2021.
