Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeClosed

WP(C) No.28432 of 2022, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO.28432 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • ANU SIVARAMAN
Judgment Date
2022-12-06
Court Decision / Holding
This writ petition is closed. The court notes there are civil disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and that police intervention in such civil disputes may not be possible. If there are allegations of building violations or need for protection, they should be pursued by the local authority or in civil proceedings; police action is to be taken only for law and order concerns. The contentions of the parties are left open to be pursued in proceedings before the Munsiff Court or before the Corporation as the case may be.
Final Disposition
Closed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • VINOJ RAJAN

Respondents

  • The Station House Officer, Vanchiyoor Police Station, Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum - 695 035
  • The Commissioner of Police, Trivandrum District, Police Commissionerate, Thycaud, Trivandrum - 695 014
  • S.Chandrasekharan Nair Advocate, VRA C-5, East of District Court, Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum - 695 035
  • Vijayakumar R. TC 92/531(2), Chandrika Bhavan, Near Nellikuzhi Anganvadi, Anayara, Trivandrum - 695 029

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • PRAVEEN VYASAN
  • • ANJALI A.S.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • S.RAJEEV
  • • M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
  • • V.VINAY
  • • M.S.ANEER
  • • PRERITH PHILIP
  • • JOSEPH SARATH K.P.
  • • K.JOHN MATHAI
  • • JOSON MANAVALAN
  • • KURYAN THOMAS
  • • PAULOSE C.
  • • ABRAHAM RAJA
  • • KANNAN R.
  • • R.CHETHAN KRISHNA
  • • SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN
  • • SR.GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, a practicing lawyer before the courts at Thiruvananthapuram, seeks protection for life and property for himself and his colleagues at his office. He alleges civil disputes with the 3rd respondent, who has allegedly purchased space adjacent to the petitioner’s office and undertaken unauthorized construction in an old building at risk of collapse, and the 4th respondent, a contractor, who purportedly stole five CCTV cameras in front of the petitioner’s office. The petitioner claims that Exts. P2 and P3 were lodged with the police, but no action was taken. The 3rd respondent counters that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner has no title to the disputed premises; he asserts a civil dispute with a pending suit (O.S. 751/2022) and that the action is an attempt to defame. The 4th respondent denies wrongdoing and contends the matter is civil in nature. The court notes that civil disputes exist between the parties and that police intervention in such disputes may be inappropriate; it directs that issues related to building violations or safety be addressed by the local authority and that police action is only for law and order concerns. Ultimately, the writ petition is closed, with contentions left to be pursued in civil proceedings or before the Corporation.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, asserts that his office near the District Court complex is being encroached by the 3rd respondent, who has undertaken unauthorized construction in a very old building likely to collapse. He alleges that the 4th respondent stole five CCTV cameras installed in front of his office and that Exts. P2 and P3 were filed with the police, but no action followed. He seeks directions to respondents 1 and 2 to provide protection to his life and property and complains of threats to himself and fellow lawyers, including lady lawyers.

Contentions of Respondents

The 3rd respondent argues the writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner has no title to the premises; a civil dispute exists with a pending suit (O.S. 751/2022). The 4th respondent contends the petitioner assaulted him and that the work is not being proceeded with due to obstruction by the petitioner. Reliance is placed on Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, Devadasan S v. State of Kerala, and Ajith Associates v. Commissioner of Police to suggest that concealment of material facts bars discretionary relief and that civil remedies should prevail; the police interference in civil disputes is limited and the local authorities should address building violations.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India2007 KHC 3936Mentioned OnlyCited by the 3rd respondent to argue that suppression of material facts bars discretionary relief; the court does not adopt this principle in granting relief in the present petition.
Devadasan S v. State of Kerala and others2005 (3) KLT 739Mentioned OnlyCited as authority by the respondents; the court references it but does not explicitly apply or distinguish it in the ruling.
Ajith Associates (Pvt) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Police, Erankulam and others2016 (3) KHC 280Mentioned OnlyCited by the respondents; the judgment’s reasoning does not hinge on overruling or distinguishing it.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against WP(C) No.28432 of 2022, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO.28432 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER :-** **ADV VINOJ RAJAN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.K.V.RAJAN, THUNDATHIL CHAMBERS, EAST OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 035.** **BY ADVS. PRAVEEN VYASAN ANJALI A.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS :-** **1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM - 695 035. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 014. 3 S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR ADVOCATE, VRA C-5, EAST OF DISTRICT COURT, VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM - 695 035. 4 VIJAYAKUMAR R. TC 92/531(2), CHANDRIKA BHAVAN, NEAR NELLIKUZHI ANGANVADI, ANAYARA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 029. BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH SARATH K.P. K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN R.CHETHAN KRISHNA SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2022, THE COURT ON 06.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO.28432 OF 2022 -: 2 :- ## JUDGMENT ## Dated this the 6th day of December, 2022 The petitioner, a practising lawyer before the courts at Thiruvananthapuram has approached this Court seeking directions to respondents 1 and 2 to provide protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his colleagues at his office. The complaints submitted by the petitioner are directed against respondents 3 and 4, who are also advocates practising before the same courts. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner has an office space to the south of the District Court complex which he had been occupying for a long time. It is submitted that the 3[rd] respondent has recently purchased the office room immediately adjacent to the petitioner's office on its southern side and has started restructuring of the office space unauthorisedly. It is submitted that the building in question is very old and is in danger of collapsing due to the unauthorised construction activities of the 3[rd] respondent. It is submitted that the 4[th] respondent under the instigation of the 3[rd] respondent committed theft of five CC TV cameras installed in WP(C) NO.28432 OF 2022 -: 3 :- front of the petitioner's office and the petitioner and his colleagues including lady lawyers were threatened and showered with abuses by the 4[th] respondent. It is submitted that Exts.P2 and P3 complaints were submitted by the petitioner before the police, but that no steps had been taken thereon. 3. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 3[rd] respondent contending that the writ petition is not maintainable and that material facts have been concealed by the petitioner while filing the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has no title or document to support his possession of the premises and it is only to conceal this illegality that the petitioner is attempting to malign and defame the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents. It is submitted that a suit was filed by the petitioner before the Munsiff Court and he failed to get any order from the said court. It is further contended that due to the illegal assault by the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent had to prefer Ext.R3(a) complaint dated 28.8.2022 before the 2[nd] respondent and it is only as a counter blast to the same that Exts.P2 and P3 complaints have been WP(C) NO.28432 OF 2022 -: 4 :- submitted by the petitioner. It is stated that Ext.R3(b) would show the receipt of the complaint by the 2[nd] respondent and Ext.R3(c) complaint has been submitted by the 3[rd] respondent before the 1[st] respondent and Ext.R3(d) before the Thiruvananthapuram Bar Association. 4. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India [2007 KHC 3936], the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent would contend that where material facts are suppressed and concealed from the court, the litigant would not be entitled to a discretionary relief that he claims in a writ petition. The decisions of this Court in Devadasan S v. State of Kerala and others [2005 (3) KLT 739] and Ajith Associates (Pvt) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Police, Erankulam and others [2016 (3) KHC 280] are relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent. 5. The 4[th] respondent has also filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It is stated that O.S. No.751/2022 is pending before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram between the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent and the writ petition is only an off-shoot of the civil WP(C) NO.28432 OF 2022 -: 5 :- dispute between them. It is submitted that the 4[th] respondent is only the contractor engaged by the 3[rd] respondent and the petitioner had assaulted and attacked the 4[th] respondent as well and Ext.R4(a) complaint was submitted by the 4[th] respondent before the Bar Association. It is submitted that the work entrusted by the 3[rd] respondent is not being proceeded with only because of the illegal obstructions caused by the petitioner. 6. A reply affidavit is placed on record by the petitioner contending that the construction carried out by the 3[rd] respondent is without any permit from the local authority. It is further stated that the 3[rd] respondent is a senior law officer of the Government and that on a complaint submitted by the petitioner, the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram had issued stop memos to the 3[rd] respondent, but the construction is continuing in spite of the stop memos. It is submitted that a suit was filed seeking damages on account of the illegal activities of the 3[rd] respondent and that the same has nothing to do with the subject matter of this writ petition. WP(C) NO.28432 OF 2022 -: 6 :- 7. The learned Government Pleader submits that the issues between the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent are in the nature of a civil dispute and that the police has not interfered in the matter. 8. Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that there are apparently civil disputes pending between the parties, that is, the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent. If that be so, the interference of the police in such civil dispute may not be possible, especially in view of the fact that the petitioner as well as the 3[rd] respondent are practising lawyers. If the petitioner has any allegation that the 3[rd] respondent is carrying out constructions in violation of the Building Rules or without obtaining permits, it is for the petitioner to raise the matter appropriately before the local authority and for the local authority to take further action in the matter. However, the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent clearly have no manner of right to create law and order situations or to assault each other on account of civil disputes, if any pending between them. In case of any such acts, the police shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. WP(C) NO.28432 OF 2022 -: 7 :- In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the police can be directed to afford protection to the property of the petitioner. This writ petition is, therefore, closed, leaving open the contentions of the parties to be appropriately agitated either in proceedings before the Munsiff Court or before the Corporation as the case may be. Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/24.11.2022 WP(C) NO.28432 OF 2022 ## -: 8 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28432/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR POLICE PROTECTION DATED 30/08/2022. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMIL SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DATED 30/08/2022. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/06/2022 OF THE CORPORATION TO R1 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/09/2022 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R3(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.08.2022, ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit R3(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.08.2022. Exhibit R3(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.08.2022, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT DATED 28.08.2022. Exhibit R3(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.08.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BAR ASSOCIATION. Exhibit R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE BAR ASSOCIATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31/07/2022