IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 914 of 2011(L) -------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- SALAHUDDIN NALAKATH, SON OF MOHAMMED, 297A, NALAKATH HOUSE, PARASSERY POST, B.P.ANGADI, TIRUR, PIN-679 102, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. A.ABDULLA, SON OF KUNHAMMED, DIRECTOR, MEEZAN REALTORS (P) LTD., RESIDING AT 7/146, KUNNAKKAD HOUSE, OORAKAM MELMURI POST, PIN-679 519. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 914 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE FIR NO. 146/2008 DATED 23.5.2008. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 29.10.2009. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5-1-2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.914 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 to 5 to afford police protection for the petitioner against the highhanded, violent and culpable acts on the part of the 2nd respondent, with whom the petitioner was associated in a business. 2. The matter was admitted on 11.01.11 and was posted to this day. 3. The 2nd respondent has been served. No counter affidavit or objection has been filed. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from the 1st respondent submits that in the perception of the 1st respondent, there is no threat now to the life or person of the petitioner. 4. It appears that there are some disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, who were associates in their business. There have been allegations and counter allegations. At any rate, the 1st respondent does not perceive any threat to W.P(C) No.914 of 2011 2 the life or person of the petitioner at the hands of the 2nd respondent. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that if there be any allegations of threat or risk to the life and person of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain to the police, whereupon the police shall take necessary action to afford protection to the petitioner. 5. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no specific directions need be issued to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, we clarify, shall not and need not interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 1st respondent and allow this petition in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/