Prakash Kumar vs The State Police Chief
2022 Latest Caselaw 3348 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
   TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO.6019 OF 2022
PETITIONER :-

          PRAKASH KUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS
          S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, KALLUTHUNDIL VEEDU,
          AAYIKUNNAM MURI, SOORANAD THEKKU VILLAGE,
          SOORANAD P.O., KOLLAM-690 522.

          BY ADV B.MOHANLAL


RESPONDENTS :-

    1     THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
          POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

    2     THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL,
          KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 506.

    3     THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
          SASTHAMKOTTA, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM-695 021.

    4     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
          SOORANAD POLICE STATION
          SOORANAD P O, KOLLAM-690 021

    5     SRI.SIVAN PILLAI,
          S/O.BALAKRISHNA KURUP, KALLUTHUNDIL PADINJATTATHIL
          VEEDU, AAIKUNNAM MURI, SOORANAD THEKKU VILLAGE,
          SOORANAD P.O., KOLLAM-690 522.

          BY ADVS.
          B.KRISHNA MANI
          DHANUJA M.S
          N.V.SANDHYA
          P.V.DILEEP
          SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.6019 OF 2022

                                    -: 2 :-


                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2022

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order of direction commanding the Respondents 1 to 4 not to harass the petitioner and others in any manner with the connivance of the 5th respondent by threatening and interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the C- Schedule pathway and to ply the vehicles including the 4 wheeler through the pathway as per Ext.P2 order in O.S.No.211/2016 and Ext.P4 order in O.S.No.236/2016 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcottah.

(ii) To declare that the Respondents 1 to 4 have absolutely no jurisdiction to harass the petitioner and others in any manner with the connivance of the 5th respondent by threatening and interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the C-Schedule pathway and to ply the vehicles including 4 wheeler through the pathway as per Ext.P2 order in O.S.No.211/2016 and Ext.P4 order in O.S.No.236/2016 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcottah."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel

appearing for the 5th respondent.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner along with others had filed O.S.No.211/2016

before the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcottah and Ext.P2 interim order

of injunction had been granted by the Munsiff Court with regard to WP(C) NO.6019 OF 2022

the C-schedule pathway having a width of 2.60 metres. It is

submitted that the 5th respondent, after receipt of notice in the

petitioner's suit, had filed O.S.No.236/2016 before the same court

and had obtained Ext.P4 order of ad-interim injunction. It is

submitted that the 5th respondent is a money lender and that he

has exercised influence on the 4th respondent and that the police

are not permitting the petitioner to enjoy the benefits of Ext.P2

interim injunction order passed by the Munsiff Court in his case. It

is submitted that the petitioner who was enjoying the benefits of

Ext.P2 has now been restrained from using the pathway to his

property and from taking vehicles through the said pathway as was

expressly permitted by Ext.P2.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record

by the 5th respondent. It is contended therein that the issue with

regard to the width of the pathway is now pending before the

competent civil court in the suits. It is the contention of the 5 th

respondent that the width of the pathway is only 3 feet and that the

contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the width of the

pathway is completely untenable. It is contended that even in case

the petitioner has any contention that there is a violation of the

order of injunction in O.S.No.211/2016, it is for the petitioner to

approach the competent civil court and get appropriate orders. It WP(C) NO.6019 OF 2022

is submitted that in view of the interim injunction orders as

evidenced by Exts.P2 and P4, the issue requires a clarification at

the hands of the civil court and that the orders as sought for in the

writ petition cannot be granted since it would amount to widening

the scope of the orders passed by the civil court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

police have no right to interfere in the civil dispute between the

parties and an order against such interference and harassment is

all that is sought for in the writ petition.

6. The learned Government Pleader submits, on

instructions, that the parties had been summoned to the police

station and they had been required to abide by the injunction

orders of the civil court and that absolutely no harassment or

interference at the instance of the police in the civil dispute

between the parties is evidenced from any of the materials placed

on record.

7. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the

opinion that the issue with regard to the width of the pathway is a

matter which is pending before the competent civil court and that

the said issue has to be considered appropriately by the said court.

However, the 4th respondent shall not interfere in the civil dispute

between the petitioner and the 5 th respondent. In case the WP(C) NO.6019 OF 2022

petitioner has any contention that the order of injunction is being

violated by the 5th respondent, the petitioner shall approach the

competent civil court in accordance with law. The 4 th respondent

shall not take any steps to either harass the petitioner or involve in

the civil dispute between the parties.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Jvt/24.3.2022 WP(C) NO.6019 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6019/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT OS NO.211/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER AND HIS RELATIVES AGAINST THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTAH.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 26.09.2016 IN IA NO.1125/2016 IN OS NO.211/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTAH.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT OS NO.236/2016 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTAH.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2016 IN IA NO.1352/20176 IN OS NO.236/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTAH.

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.02.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10.02.2022 IN PETITION NO.26312/2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANADU POLICE STATION.

Exhibit R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 9-11-2021 ISSUED FROM THE SOORANADU POLICE STATION.

Exhibit R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27-2-2022 ISSUED FROM THE SOORANADU POLICE STATION.