RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court complaining of harassment by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, he is the owner in possession of a parcel of land. Because of interference by the 3rd respondent, he was obliged to approach the civil court. An order of injunction (copy produced as Ext.P1) has been passed by the Munsiff Court, Kollam in favour of the petitioner. THE short grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is unnecessarily interfering in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. THE 2nd respondent is not entitled to do the same. Appropriate directions under Article 226 of the Constitution may be issued to prevent such abuse of power and consequent unnecessary vexation and harassment. This in short is the plea of the petitioner.

(2.) THE 3rd respondent has entered appearance. THE learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner has not placed all the details before this Court. It is true that an ad interim exparte order of injunction was passed, ie. Ext.P1, on 07.01.2011. Subsequently the 3rd respondent had appeared before court. THE court had deputed a Commissioner to inspect the property. After getting the report of the Commissioner, the court had directed that status quo be maintained. Ext.P1 order stands modified to that extent, submits the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. THE attempt of the petitioner is to run away with an order so that he can make use of the same to harass and vex the 3rd respondent. In these circumstances, no directions are liable to be issued, submits the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

(3.) WE accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the 2nd respondent shall not unnecessarily interfere in the civil dispute between the parties unless any crime is committed or the law and order situation is threatened.