IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3031 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.RAMAN, GOVINDAVILASAM, IRUMBANGAD (P.O), EZHUKON, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR, SMT.MOLLY KOSHY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM-691 305. 2. SASI.K., S/O.KOCHUCHERUKKAN, ELLUMVILA VEEDU, IRUMBANGAD(P.O), EZHUKON, KOLLAM-691 505. 3. KUNJAMMA, W/O.SIVANANDAN, ELLUMVILA VEEDU, IRUMBANGAD (P.O), EZHUKON, KOLLAM-691 505. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EZHUKONE POLICE STATION, KOTTARAKKARA-691 506. R1 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3031 of 2011-D ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 and 4 to afford police protection to the petitioner against culpable and violent acts of respondents 2 and 3. According to the petitioner, he was already constrained to approach this Court twice with writ petitions claiming police protection which were allowed; but the same is not being effectively implemented. The petitioner had come to this Court with a grievance that there has been non-compliance with the direction for grant of police protection. But the said petition happened to be dismissed under certain compelling circumstances because earlier orders of the civil court were not produced. According to the petitioner, the party respondents 2 W.P.(C) No. 3031 of 2011 -: 2 :- and 3 are continuing to indulge in contumacious acts and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court seeking fresh directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to afford protection to the petitioner. 2. This petition was filed on 28/1/2011. Notice was ordered on 31/1/2011. Though party respondents have been served, they did not enter appearance and another Bench vide order dated 8/2/2011 had directed as follows: “There will be an interim order that the police will provide adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioner. Post after three weeks.” The party respondents have not chosen to enter appearance so far. The learned Government Pleader submits that the interim order dated 8/2/11 is being complied with strictly. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim order may now be made absolute and further proceedings closed. 3. Inasmuch as the party respondents have not chosen to enter appearance, notwithstanding the passing of the interim order dated 8/2/11, we are satisfied, in the circumstances of this case, that this petition can be allowed and the interim order W.P.(C) No. 3031 of 2011 -: 3 :- issued on 8/2/11 can be made absolute. 4. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The interim order dated 8/2/11 extracted above is made absolute. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge