IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 518 of 2010(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V.M.MUJEEB RAHMAN, S/O.KALLINGALAKATH KUNHUTTY, KALLINGALAKATH, P.O.CHENNARA, MANGALAM (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SURESH, S/O.KALLERI MAKKUNNI, P.O.CHENNARA, MANGALAM (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. KUTTAN, S/O.KALLERI MAKKUNNI, P.O.CHENNARA, MANGALAM (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. SASI, S/O.KALLERI MAKKUNNI, P.O.CHENNARA, MANGALAM (VIA),MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA R4 TO R6 BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SRI.P.G.SURESH, SMT.K.VIDYA, SRI.M.R.VIBIN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.518/2010 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2960/1981 DTD. 26/12/1981. P2: COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE DTD. 15/03/08. P3: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DTD. 29/12/09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss WPC.NO.518/2010 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.518 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. This petition for police protection filed as early as on 6.1.2010 remains without any disposal even now. The matter came up for admission on 7.1.2010. Urgent notice was ordered on that day. No interim orders were issued. Subsequently, the matter has not been brought up for hearing. Service is complete. Respondents 4 to 6 are represented by a counsel. 2. There is no representation for the petitioner. It is evident that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this writ petition now. The sequence of events eloquently supports that contention. 3. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/