Kerala High Court
Savithri Amma vs The Corporation Of Kozhikode on 25 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1946
WA NO. 1444 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.16771 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS:
1 SAVITHRI AMMA
AGED 76 YEARS
W/O LATE K.V. NARAYANA MENON, RESIDING AT ARCHANA,
MEENCHANDA, P.O. ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE,
KOZHIKODE 673 018 NOW RESIDING AT 7T, KRISHNA
PALACE, SANSKRIT COLLEGE ROAD, P.O. THRIPUNITHURA,
KOCHI, PIN - 682301
2 M.K. RAJASREE
AGED 54 YEARS
D/O LATE K.V. NARAYANA MENON, RESIDING AT 7T,
KRISHNA PALACE, SANSKRIT COLLEGE ROAD, P.O.
THRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI, PIN - 682301
BY ADVS.
V.V.SURENDRAN
DONA PAUL
P.A.HARISH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION
BUILDINGS, GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 637032
WA NO. 1444 OF 2024
2024:KER:81602
2
2 THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, CORPORATION BUILDINGS,
GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673032
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PANNIYANKARA POLICE STATION, PANNIYANKARA, PO.
KALLAI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673003
4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PANNIYANKARA POLICE STATION, PANNIYANKARA, PO.
KALLAI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673003
5 M.K. RAMESH
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. LATE K.V.NARAYANA MENON, MANAGINGDIRECTOR,
K.V.N. IMPEX (PRIVATE) LIMITED, MEENCHANDA, PO.
ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673018
6 M.K. RAJESH
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. LATE K.V.NARAYANA MENON, DIRECTOR, K.V.N.
IMPEX (PRIVATE) LIMITED, MEENCHANDA, PO. ARTS AND
SCIENCE COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673018
BY ADVS.
V KRISHNA MENON
K.SUJAI SATHIAN
T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)(S-310)
SRI V SETHUMAdhava (SR), SRI K SUJAI SATHIYANSRI V
KRISHNA MENON , SC,
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1444 OF 2024
2024:KER:81602
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2024
Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
Heard Sri.V.V.Surendran, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant, Sri.V.Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Advocate and Sri.Sujai
Sathyan, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.5 and 6.
2. This issue that has arisen before us is a demand made by the
Appellant to extend Police Protection for enforcement of an order which
is passed by the Town Planning Authority, Municipal Corporation. The
Respondents have raised an issue that they have certain rights in respect
of the property in question and proceedings are pending before the
Tribunal. By order dated 30 September 2024 we directed the Municipal
Corporation to move the Tribunal to clarify as to which area is covered
under its interim order. An application was made by the Corporation
before the Tribunal in clarification. The clarification given is placed on
record by the Standing Counsel for the Corporation by way of a memo.
3. We have perused the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal
has clarified as to what extent, the stay is operating. As regards the inter se
adjudication of rights between the Petitioner/Appellant and the private
Respondents, it is a matter for the competent Court to decide and under
the garb of seeking Police Protection, adjudication of inter se disputes
cannot be side stepped. We, however, clarify that if the
Petitioner/Appellant is proceeding to implement the order of the
WA NO. 1444 OF 2024
2024:KER:81602
Planning Authority and there is no restraint order by any competent
Court restraining the Appellant or any order by a competent Court in
respect of the property in question and yet if the Appellant is disturbed or
prevented from carrying out the orders of the Planning Authority, the
Police Protection can be extended. However, if the Respondents are able
to place before the Police Authorities, any order of competent Court, the
Police Protection cannot be extended. We, therefore, permit the
Appellant to apply to the concerned Police Authorities seeking Police
Protection and in case the Respondents have any order of competent
Court in their favour, it is open to them to point it out to the Police
Authorities, who then decide the course of action.
4. In parting, we observe that using a Police machinery to influence
the outcome in a pending civil dispute is an anathema to the Rule of law.
Police assistance cannot be regularly extended in the disputes which
require resolution in civil forums. Police machinery is to be deployed
primarily when an issue of law and order arises. The attempt to seek
Police Protection to side step adjudication in competent court and forums
must be discouraged.
This Appeal is disposed of.
sd/-
Nitin Jamdar
Chief Justice
sd/-
S. Manu
Judge
Nsd
