IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 748 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15804/2010 Dated 01/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NAJEEMA BEEVI.K,W/O.NAZEER, BALU MAHAL, THATTAMALA NAGAR,THATTAMALA PO,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. NIYAS NAZEER ALIAS BALU, S/O.NAZEER, BALU MAHAL,THATTAMALA NAGAR,THATTAMALA PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SHANAVAS, S/O.KULSAM BEEVI,BALU MAHAL, THATTAMALA NAGAR,THATTAMALA PO,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANSARI,S/O.MUHAMMED YUSUF,SAIBER VILLA (LOOZIYAS),THEJAS NAGAR-138,VADAKKEVILA PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SHRI. C. RAJENDRAN R2 & 3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. P.K. BABU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 23793 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No. 748 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 15804 of 2010 A & W.P.(C) No. 23793 of 2010 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Joseph, J. The above Review Petition is filed by respondents 3 to 5 in W.P.(C) No. 15804 of 2010. The said Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent in the Review Petition seeking police protection. The said case was disposed of, inter alia, recording the submission of respondents 3 to 5 that the allegations made by the writ petitioner are false and further that they have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. Therefore this Court closed the Writ Petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate protection to the life of the petitioner, in case there is any threat from respondents 3 to 5/ R.P.No. 748 of 2010 & connected cases 2 the review petitioners. It is feeling aggrieved by the said judgment that the Review Petition is filed. 2. It is complained that under the shade of the observations made in the judgment, the writ petitioner came to the house of the review petitioners and started shouting abusive words. It is also stated that taking advantage of the observations in the judgment, the first respondent is harassing the review petitioners. 3. It is stated that this Court did not go into the allegations raised by the parties and the Writ Petition is only a vexatious litigation. There is reference to the complaints filed by the review petitioners. The review petitioners have also filed W.P.(C) No.23793 of 2010, wherein they have sought for police protection to the life of the petitioners and their family members and to take action on their complaints. The 4th respondent, against whom protection is sought, is none other than the first respondent in R.P.No. 748 of 2010. There is reference made to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 15804 of 2010, in the other Writ Petition as Ext.P5. R.P.No. 748 of 2010 & connected cases 3 4. We heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned Government Pleader. 5. As far as the Review Petition is concerned, the main complaint is that in view of the observations made in the Writ Petition that in case there is any threat, the police shall give protection to the life of the writ petitioner, it is being misused and the writ petitioner is harassing the review petitioners. We record the submission of the learned counsel on behalf of respondents 3 to 5 that the said respondents have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the writ petitioner. We direct that if there is any threat, protection shall be granted. However, in view of the apprehension of the review petitioners we modify the judgment. 6. We allow the Review Petition for the purpose of effecting certain modifications so as to safeguard the interests of the respondents also. We modify the judgment in the Writ Petition and direct that in case any threat from respondents 3 to 5 in the Writ Petition is brought to the notice of the second respondent, the second R.P.No. 748 of 2010 & connected cases 4 respondent in the Writ Petition will look into the matter and if threat is found to be genuine, he shall give protection to the life of the petitioner as against respondents 3 to 5. W.P.(C) No. 23793 of 2010 We have already passed an interim order in this case on 19.8.2010. After hearing the parties, we dispose of the Writ Petition by making the interim order absolute. (K.M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm