IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20453 of 2011(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- A.D.JOY, ALAPPATTU HOUSE, K.S.UDAYAN ROAD, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 012. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASBA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 3. SRI.N.D.BABURAJ, S.B.CONSTRUCTIONS, ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI-682 026. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA R3 BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH), SRI.V.K.SUBRAMANIAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20453/2011 F APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: P1: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 21/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 20453 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. In this writ petition the petitioner a retired employee of the Cochin Refineries Ltd. seeks police protection for the lives of himself and his wife. According to the petitioner, he entrusted the construction of a residential house with the 3rd respondent who did not execute the work properly. On account of the unsatisfactory manner in which the work was executed he became obliged to terminate the contract. This antagonised according to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is causing threat to the lives of himself and his wife. On considering the writ petition we direct the learned Government Pleader to seek instructions from the concerned police officers as to the correctness of the allegations. On getting notice the 3rd respondent entered appearance before us through Advocate Sri.T.KAjithkumar. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the termination of the contract was WP(C) .20453/2011 2 without any justifiable reason. It is the petitioner who is preventing the 3rd respondent from taking the measurements of the work so far done. There is no threat to the lives of the petitioner or his wife . Learned counsel undertook before us that there will not be any threat from the part of the 3rd respondent to the petitioner or his wife. 2. Learned Government Pleader submitted that on getting the complaint the parties were summoned to the police station and both parties agreed in the police station that the measurements will be taken amicably and the dispute if necessary will be resolved through process of the competent lower court. 3. The question for consideration is whether the police protection directions sought later be granted. According to us, in view of the stand taken by the 3rd respondent before us the above question is to be answered in the negative. We record the submission made by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. We direct the petitioner and the 3rd WP(C) .20453/2011 3 respondent to have resolution of the dispute subsisting between them over the contract work through the process of the civil court if they are unable to settle the same otherwise. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .20453/2011 4