A true owner or their representative cannot be obstructed without a civil court injunction.

1. The petitioner is represented by a power of attorney holder. The petitioner is the owner of apartments 8E and 8F in Jomer Avalon Apartment. The petitioner is based in Dubai and hence is represented by his power of attorney. The 4th respondent claims to be the president of the 5th respondent Association and the 6th respondent is the secretary. The flat originally belonged to the petitioner's father and he filed O.S. No.126 of 2020 before the Munsiff's Court - IV, Ernakulam, in which respondents 4 and 5 are respondents. The said case is filed to declare that the decision of the meeting of the managing committee of the 5th respondent is not valid from 20.07.2018.

2. The case of the petitioner is that during February 2021, respondents 4 and 7 committed theft of a Marine aquarium and other articles owned by the petitioner, and on a complaint, they were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.202 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First - Class Magistrate Court - II, Ernakulam, and the final report is filed on 23.11.2021. Thereafter respondents 4, 6, and 7 filed O.S.No.27 of 2021 before the Sub Court - III, Ernakulam, against the petitioner to realise an amount of Rs.11,67,463/- and the said suit was dismissed for non - payment of balance court fee and a review petition is pending against that O.S.

3. The power of attorney is managing the apartment since the original owner is outside India. From 13.07.2023 onwards, the power of attorney holder illegally blocked the petitioner from entering the compound of the apartment by the security staff of the 5th respondent, and therefore he filed a complaint before the 3rd respondent as Ext.P3, but no action was taken on the said complaint. Since there was no action on Ext.P3, another petition was filed on 21.7.2023 before the 2nd respondent which is marked as Ext.P5. Ext.P7 is another complaint dated 08.09.2023, preferred by the power of attorney holder before the 3rd respondent that he was obstructed by respondents 4, 6, and 7 on 08.09.2023. Therefore, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to take action on Exhibit P3, Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P7 complaints and to afford adequate and appropriate police aid and protection to the life and limb of Petitioner, his family members, his manager Sivan and employees from respondents 4, 6, and 7 and their henchmen to have access for ingress and egress to the own apartments of the petitioner herein.

b) Such other relief's that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant, in the interest of justice.

c) Pass appropriate orders dispensing with the filing of English translation of vernacular documents marked as Exhibit P2, Exhibit P3, Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P7, and

d) Provide cost of the proceedings.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 6, in which it is contended that the power of attorney holder has committed several mischiefs in the apartment and he has destroyed grills in the apartments of 8E and 8F, and forcefully taken possession of the common area, terrace of 8th level as a retaliation for filing of the suit against the petitioner by the 5th respondent. He also threatened the 4th respondent. Therefore, a complaint was filed against him before the Commissioner of Police, Cochin on 07.09.2021, which is marked as Ext.P6(a).

5. The case of the respondent is that the power of attorney has threatened that he will cause an electrical short circuit in the apartment where 34 families are residing which will cause danger to the life of the people. In page No 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows. "If the petitioner guarantees that there will be no mischief and threat to the persons residing in the apartment and loss to th