IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19708 of 2011(K) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- K.C.MAZOOD, AGED 42, S/O. CHANDRAN, KANDARATHU VEEDU, AL-SHIFA HOSPITAL COMPLEX, PEZHAKKAPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. K.P.PADMAKUMAR, S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, CHOICE SILKS, T.B.ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY FINANCE, NEAR ETTUMANOOR SIVA TEMPLE, ETTUMANOOR, PIN-686 631. 3. THE PROPRIETOR, AMBIKA TEXTILES, SHOP NO.1, BASEMAT, D.D.TEX WORLD, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL FOR R1 SMT.P.S.PREETHA FOR R1 SRI.SAIJU S. FOR R1 SRI.C.SINOY FOR R1 SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO - R3 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19708 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION OF THE ALEENA CLOTHINGS EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION OF SAFAA FASHION CENTRE. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 09/07/11 GIVEN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXTS EXT.R3:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE CJM COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 27/01/11 BEARING CMP. NO.435/11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.19708 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J In this Writ Petition under Article 226 the petitioner who is conducting two textile shops in two different parts of Moovattupuzha Municipal town complains that there is subsisting threat on his life from respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are his creditors. There is appearance before us for respondents Nos.1 and 3. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the accusations made against his party in this Writ Petition are totally baseless. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner's idea is to evade payment, taking shelter under a police protection order which may be passed by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the first respondent intends to recover the amounts lawfully due to him from the petitioner only in a lawful manner. The learned counsel for the third respondent W. P. C. No.19708 of 2011 -2- also took the very same stand. He submitted that as cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured, proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have already been initiated against the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions received from the police pursuant to our order dated 26/07/11 submitted that in the enquiry it was revealed that the party respondents were only demanding the amounts due to them from the petitioner. She also submitted that Ext.P3 complaint was not actually received by the police. According to her, the enquiry conducted pursuant to this Court's order reveals that there is no threat from the part of any of the party respondents on the life of the petitioner. Sri.Bindu Sasthamangalam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner per contra would assert before us that threats are subsisting on the life of the petitioner. 3. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the petitioner has not been successful in making out a case for issuance of the direction W. P. C. No.19708 of 2011 -3- sought for in this Writ Petition. Admittedly, the petitioner owes money from respondents 1 to 3 and respondents 1 to 3 cannot be blamed if they are demanding the amounts back. We record the assurance given to us by respondents 1 to 3 that respondents 1 to 3 do not intend to have recourse to any illegal methods for recovering the amounts due to them. We dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondents 1 to 3 to have recourse to the process of civil court or any other court for redressal of their grievance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.19708 of 2011 -4-