Nisarudeen represented by His Power of Attorney Holder Abdul Vahid vs Circle Inspector of Police, Kazhakkoottam Thiruvananthapuram District-695582, The Sub Inspector of Police Pothencode, Thiruvananthapuram District-695584 and Noushad

K.M. Joseph, J.—The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following relies:

i) To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the life of the petitioners and their men to effect constructions in the petitioner''s property as per Ext.P4 permit and P5 approved plan.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to maintain law and order situation by preventing respondents 3 and 4 and their henchmen from committing any criminal trespass of forcibly entering the property of 4.34 Ares of land comprised in Re Survey No. 9/2/1 and 9/29/1 of Ayirooppara Village and causing threat to the life of the petitioners and their men.

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner, who is employed abroad, is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of an area of 4.34 Ares of land comprised in Re Survey No. 9/2/1 and 9/29/1 of Ayirooppara Village by virtue of Ext.P2 sale deed dated 4/8/2012 and is represented in this writ petition by his power of attorney holder. The petitioner has obtained Ext.P4 permit and Ext.P5 approved plan and licence for construction of a commercial complex. When the petitioner started preparations for construction, the same was illegally prevented by the 3rd respondent who is running a hotel in the adjacent plot. Ext.P6 order has been issued for abating the nuisance caused by the 3rd respondent on a petition moved by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner. The third respondent instead of complying with the directions in Exts.P6 and P7 has obstructed the petitioner from making construction in his property. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 representation before the second respondent. Since no action was taken on Ext.P10 complaint, the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition.

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. We are of the view that the petitioner is to be relegated to approach the civil court wherein the third respondent has already filed a civil suit, O.S. No. 666/2012. It is open to the petitioner to move the civil court where the suit filed by the third respondent is pending and seek injunction as advised. In the facts of this case, we are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, particularly in view of the fact that the civil suit filed by the third respondent is already pending. The petitioner''s apprehension is that there may be delay in disposal of the injunction application. Hence, we direct that if the injunction application is filed before the civil court where the suit is already pending, the said civil court will dispose of the application at the earliest, without undue delay. If the petitioner is constrained to file an application for police protection, the same will also be disposed of without any delay.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.