Kerala High Court
Vinod Raghavan vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 10155 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
1 VINOD RAGHAVAN
AGED 46 YEARS
SON OF RAGHAVAN, THATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALIYAKOTTARAM,
NJANDUPARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686577
2 SWAPNA SREEDHATH
AGED 49 YEARS
WIFE OF LATE SRI. SREEDATH, MOOZHIYIL HOUSE, SWAPNA
VIHARA, THRIKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANASSERRY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686105
BY ADV LUKE J CHIRAYIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM- KUMILY ROAD,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686002
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOKKAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY,
KERALA, PIN - 686555
4 V.M. GEORGE
AGED 74 YEARS
RESIDING AT THEKKEVAYALUMKAL HOUSE, ELANGULAM P.O.,
ELANGULAM VILLAGE, ELANGULAM KARA, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686522
5 SAJIMON
AGED 52 YEARS
SON OF SRI. GOPALAN, MUDHANTHIYANIYIL HOUSE,
KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., AANIKKADU VADAKKUM BHAGOM KARA,
CHENGALAM EAST VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
682315
6 SHAJI
WP(C) NO.10155 of 2024
2
AGED 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT THEKKEVAYALUMKAL HOUSE, ELANGULAM P.O.,
ELANGULAM VILLAGE, ELANGULAM KARA, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686522
SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM, FOR R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.10155 of 2024
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners say that the 2 nd among them
is the owner of the property and that 1st among
them had entered into an agreement with her, for
the purpose of cutting and removing certain trees
standing thereon. They say that, however, for no
tenable reason, respondents 4 to 6 are
obstructing the same and that they have
intimidated them with threats and violence, if
they attempt to do so.
2. The petitioners say that there are no
disputes with respect to the property or the
trees, but that the respondents are engaging in
obstruction, making untenable claims, which
cannot be acceded to. They say that they
therefore, preferred Ext.P2 complaint before the
police, but that since no action has been taken
thereon, they have been constrained to approach
this Court through this writ petition.
WP(C) NO.10155 of 2024
3. Pertinently, in response, to the afore
submissions of the petitioners, as made by their
learned counsel- Sri.Luke J.Chirayil, the learned
Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent -
T.I.Abdul Salam, submitted that his client is a
lawyer, who has no reason to cause any
obstruction or make any threat to the petitioner,
as alleged. He submitted that the imputations are
extremely mischievous with other intent; and
therefore, that this writ petition against him is
liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. I notice from the files that even though
summons to respondents 5 and 6 have been served,
there is no appearance on their behalf, nor are
they represented through counsel before this
Court.
5. The learned Government Pleader -
Sri.P.M.Shameer, submitted that the allegations
made by the petitioner against the 4th respondent
WP(C) NO.10155 of 2024
have not been found to be true, though
investigations are still continuing. He submitted
that, however, there is no obstruction to the
petitioners in carrying out any legal activity in
the property of the 2nd respondent and that the
police will ensure sufficient protection to them
during such.
Taking note of the afore submissions and
recording those of Sri.T.I.Abdul Salam, made on
behalf of the 4th respondent, I allow this writ
petition directing the police to ensure that the
law and order is maintained and that the
petitioners are subjected to no threat or
intimidation by any person, when they continue to
carry on activities in terms of Ext.P1 Agreement,
provided they commit no violation of law and act
within the statutory prescriptions.
As far as respondents 5 and 6 are concerned,
if they have any tenable disputes against the
WP(C) NO.10155 of 2024
petitioners, they are left with liberty to impel
them before the competent Forum/Court; for which
purpose, all contentions in that regard are left
open.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
SAS JUDGE
WP(C) NO.10155 of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10155/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 05.01.2024
ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.02.2024
PREFERRED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL RECEIPT HAVING E-MAIL
COMMUNICATION FROM [email protected]
TO THE E-MAIL ADDRESS:
[email protected].
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
19.02.2024 ISSUED FROM THE E-MAIL
ADDRESS:[email protected] TO THE E-
MAIL ADDRESS: [email protected].
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
20.02.2024 ISSUED FROM THE E-MAIL ADDRESS:
[email protected] TO THE E-MAIL
ADDRESS: [email protected].
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR CORRECTION DATED
25.02.2024 PREFERRED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER
HEREIN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR CORRECTION DATED
25.02.2024 PREFERRED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER
HEREIN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
