Kerala High Court
K.O.Devassy vs Muhammed Iqbal on 31 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WA NO. 509 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2022 IN WP(C) NO.5708/2022 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
K.O.DEVASSY
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. OUSEPH, KADEPPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKADU VILLAGE &
PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682502.
BY ADV K.S.GIREESAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 MUHAMMED IQBAL
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMAD,
ALIYAM HOUSE, EDAVANAKKADU P. O., PIN - 682502,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ALUVA RURAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 101.
4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NJARAKKAL P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 505.
5 THANNICHAL KRISHI SAMAJAM
REGISTRATION NO.EKM/TC/370/2021, NEDUNGADU,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., PIN - 682 59, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, MR.GRACIOUS,
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.AMBROSE, VADASSERY HOUSE,
NJARAKKAL P.O., PIN - 682 505, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
WA NO. 509 of 2022 2
6 THANNERCHAL PADASEKHARA SAMITHI
NAYARAMBALAM, REG.NO.EKM/TC/368/2021,
ESTABLISHED AT BUILDING NO.135/4 NAYARAMBALAM P.O. AND
VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, PIN - 682 509, REPRESENTED BY IT'S
PRESIDENT MR.N.J.PIOUS, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOSEPH,
NJARAKKADAN HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O.
7 FRANCIS
AGED 56 YEARS S/O.SAVI,
KANAPILLY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., PIN- 682 509,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
8 SHERLY
AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.FRANCIS,
KANAPPILLY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., PIN - 682 509,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
9 N.J.PIOUS
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH,
NJARAKKATTU HOUSE, NEDUNGADU, NAYARAMBALAM P.O.,
PIN - 682 509, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
10 M.S.PUSHKARAN
AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANYAN,
MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, NEDUNGADU, NAYARAMBALAM P.O.,
PIN - 682 509, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
11 N.V.ANIL
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KARTHU,
NIKATHITHARA HOUSE, NEDUNGADU, NAYARAMBALAM P.O.,
PIN - 682 509, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
12 ANITHA @ SUNITHA
AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.ANIL,
NIKATHITHARA HOUSE, NEDUNGADU, NAYARAMBALAM P.O.,
PIN - 682 509, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
13 P.K.VASU
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KODIYAN,
PAREKKAPPILLYTHARA HOUSE, NEDUNGADU,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., PIN - 682 509, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
14 JAMES KURIAN
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY,
KANAPPILLY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O.,
PIN - 682 509, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
WA NO. 509 of 2022 3
15 ADDL.R15 - AMRUTH THOMAS
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS K.G.,
KADAVILPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHIN,
PIN - 682 507.
16 ADDL.R16 - SILVY P.V.
AGED 82 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS K.G., KADAVILPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHIN, PIN - 682 507.
17 ADDL.R17 - JOSEPH ARUN K.M.
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MICHAEL, KALARICKAL HOUSE,
MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI TALUK, PIN - 682 507.
18 ADDL.R18 - SASI
AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.THAMPI, VATHIYEZHATH HOUSE,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHI TALUK, PIN - 682 509.
19 ADDL.R19 - M.P.PREMLAL
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.PUSHKARAN, MALIYAKKATT HOUSE,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHI TALUK, PIN - 682 509.
20 ADDL.R20 - GEO FRANCIS
AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIS, KANAPILLY HOUSE,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., PIN - 682 509, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
21 ADDL.R21 - SAVITHRI VASU
AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.P.K.VASU, PAREKKAPPILLITHARA HOUSE,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., PIN - 682 509, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
22 ADDL.R22 - K.K.PRADEEP
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAPPAN, KOCHUTHRA HOUSE,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., PIN - 682 509, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
23 ADDL.R23 - VIMALA SIVADASAN
AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.LATE SIVADASAN, MALIYAKKATT HOUSE,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 509.
24 ADDL.R24- K.K.ASOKAN
AGED 79 YEARS, S/O.K.K.KUMARAN, KALLUMADATHIL HOUSE,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 509.
25 ADDL.R25 - MATHEW JOSEPH
AGED 81 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, VADASSERRY HOUSE,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., PIN - 682 509.
26 ADDL.R26 - LAL DIL P.N.
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PUNNAKKATTUTHARA HOUSE,
PANAMPUKAD, VALLARPADAM PO, ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN-682504.
WA NO. 509 of 2022 4
27 ADDL.R27 - A.A.THOMAS
AGED 84 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTIN, ARAKKAL HOUSE, VENNALA,
KANAYANNNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 028.
28 ADDL.R28 - VARGHESE ANTONY
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, PUTHUSSERRY HOUSE,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 509.
29 ADDL.R29 - SHEENA RAJAN
AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.RAJAN, THATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 509.
30 ADDL.R30 - PUKAYILAKKAT GOPALAKRISHNAN
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, PUKAYILAKKAT HOUSE,
ETTUVEETIL, PALARIVATTOM, PIN - 682 025.
31 ADDL.R31 - PURUSHOTHAMAN
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.VELUKUTTY, NAYARUSSERRY HOUSE,
EDAVANAKKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 502.
32 ADDL. NAYARAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
(SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)
BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
KIROSH RAJAN PONNAMBIL
C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
T.N.SURESH
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. PRINCY XAVIER-SR.GP, SRI. T.N.SURESH-R1,
SRI.S.RUSSEL-R15 TO R31, SRI. K.N. CHANDRABABU-R5
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 509 of 2022 5
ALEXANDER THOMAS & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A. No.509 of 2022
[arising out of the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2022 in W.P.(C) No.5708/2022]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2022
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on
31.03.2022, granting Police Protection in favour of the writ petitioner,
subject to certain terms and conditions and subject to the decisions in
certain pending civil cases, is the subject matter of challenge in the
present intra court appeal.
2. Heard Sri.Babu Cherukara, learned Advocate, instructed by
Sri.K.S.Gireesan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the writ
appeal/14th respondent in the writ petition, Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned
Senior counsel, instructed by Sri.T.N. Suresh, learned counsel,
appearing for the 1st respondent, Smt.Princy Xavier, learned Senior
Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 4,
Sri.K.N.Chandrababu, learned counsel, appearing for the 5 th
respondent, Sri.P.A. Salim, learned Advocate, appearing for
respondents 6 to 9 & 11 to 14, Sri.Kirosh Rajan Ponnambil, learned
Advocate, appearing for the 10th respondent and Sri.S.Russel, learned
Advocate, appearing for respondents 15 to 31.
3. The prayers in the instant writ petition (civil) are as
follows:-
"1. Call for the records connected to Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P8 from the
Respondents No.2 and 3.
2. To issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents No.2 and 3
to afford sufficient police protection to the petitioner to protect his
person and to conduct fishing operation in the Padasekharam
under the strength of Exhibit P1 lease agreement from the illegal
acts of the respondents no.5 to 14.
3. Such other relief which this Honorable Court deems fit and proper
and necessary in these circumstances of this case."
4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has
rendered the impugned judgment on 31.03.2022, disposing of W.P.(C)
No.5708/2022 and the operative portion of the directions therein
contained in para Nos.9 & 10 of the judgment read as follows:-
"9. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is not in dispute
before me that there are civil suits pending between the parties with regard
to the right to conduct the prawn filtration as well as disputes in existence
with regard to the right for conduct of the activities of the Padasekharam
as well. It is also not in dispute that in the civil suits filed by the parties,
Ext.P3 order of injunction has been passed in favour of the petitioner in the
writ petition upholding this contention that he was put in possession of the
Padasekharam by the 4th respondent herein on 28.10.2021. Such a finding
is specifically found in Ext.P3 order. The applications for injunction filed
by the 5th respondent as well as the 14 th respondent have been rejected by
Exts.P4 and P7 orders. Therefore, subject to the orders if any to be passed
in the civil suits pending between the parties and subject, ofcourse, to
orders if any to be passed in the CAMAs filed by the parties before the
competent appellate court, I am of the opinion that, at present, the
petitioner in the writ petition is entitled to the logical benefits of Ext.P3
order of injunction which has been obtained by him.
10. Without expressing any view on the merits of the matter or the
contentions raised in the suits, there will be a direction that the party
respondents shall not cause any threat or obstruction to the life or the
activities of the petitioner and his rights under Ext.P3 order, without
obtaining appropriate orders from the civil court or the appellate court in
accordance with law. There will be a further direction to respondents 2
and 3 to take appropriate steps to see that law and order is maintained and
that the petitioner is granted appropriate protection for his life."
5. The learned Single Judge has guardedly and consciously
ordered that police protection will be granted to the extent that the
party respondents in the writ petition (civil) shall not cause any threat
or obstruction to the life or the activities of the petitioner and his rights
under Ext.P3 order, without obtaining appropriate orders from the civil
court or the appellate court in accordance with law. Further, a direction
was also issued in the judgment that official respondents 2 & 3 will take
appropriate steps to see that law and order is maintained and that the
writ petitioner is granted appropriate protection for his life.
6. The sheet anchor of the case of the writ petitioner was on
the basis of Ext.P1 lease entered into by him with the 5 th respondent for
doing prawn fishing in the Padasekharam mentioned in Ext.P1, but the
outer time limit of the lease agreement is only upto 15.04.2022.
7. The impugned judgment has been rendered by the learned
Single Judge on 31.03.2022. It is seen that the outer time limit of
Ext.P1 lease agreement is only upto 15.04.2022. Hence, we queried to
the parties concerned, more particularly the counsel for the writ
petitioner/1st respondent herein, as to whether the matter in issue
raised in this appeal has become infructuous by the efflux of time. It
will also be borne in mind that the present memorandum of writ appeal
has been filed by the 14th respondent in the W.P.(C) on 18.04.2022,
which is 3 days after the expiry of Ext.P1 lease agreement on
15.04.2022.
8. Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned Senior counsel, instructed and
assisted by Sri.T.N. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner/1st respondent, has fairly submitted, on the basis of
instructions, that the matter in issue has become infructuous by the
efflux of time inasmuch as the lease period covered by Ext.P1 has
expired long ago on 15.04.2022, which is 3 days prior to the institution
of this writ appeal on 18.04.2022.
9. Per contra, Sri.Babu Cherukara, learned Advocate,
instructed by Sri.K.S.Gireesan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in the writ appeal/14th respondent in the writ petition (civil)
would submit that an agreement has been made as per Ext.R14(a)
between the appellant herein/14th respondent in the writ petition (civil)
and the 6th respondent, which is a Padasekharam Samithy, distinct from
the 5th respondent, whereby the right of prawn fishing has been given
on lease basis to the appellant herein and after paying the due amounts
to the 6th respondent, the appellant is involved in the activity of prawn
fishing in the very same subject property, etc.
10. To this, Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned Senior counsel, instructed
by Sri.T.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent/writ
petitioner, would point out that the very same factual plea was put
forward by the appellant herein in a civil action before the sub court,
Kochi, in which the said civil court has passed Ext.P7 interim order
negativing and rejecting the abovesaid claim of the appellant herein.
11. Further, Sri.Babu Cherukara, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, would point out that Ext.P7 order has been challenged in
a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, as CMA No.4/2022, on the files of the
District court, Ernakulam, which is pending consideration.
12. We would also note that the learned Single Judge has also
taken note of this aspect and has very carefully and guardedly couched
the orders and directions in the impugned judgment, that the orders of
police protection shall be only in accordance with any further orders
that may be passed by the civil court concerned, including the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal arising out of Ext.P7 order.
13. Since the very claim of the writ petitioner was on the basis of
Ext.P1 lease and that the outer time limit of the same has expired on
15.04.2022, going by the claim of none other than the writ petitioner,
we are of the firm view that the matter in issue raised in this writ appeal
has become infructuous. We also make it clear that nothing in the
impugned judgment, rendered by the learned Single Judge, in the W.P.
(C) or in this judgment would, in any manner, affect all or any of the
contentions available in law to the rival parties in the pending civil
matters. In the light of these aspects, the appeal is to be closed only as
infructuous and no other orders and directions are required.
Accordingly, the above writ appeal will stand dismissed as
infructuous.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN,
JUDGE
Skk//31052022
