IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22906 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR.ZACHARIAH JACOB, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K.C.CHACKO, JAWAHAR HOUSING COLONY,KARANTHUR P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 571. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SRI.S.K.SAJU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ,KOZHIKODE 673 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 571. 4. SRI.SHABAREESH, VICE PRESIDENT, YOUTH CONGRESS, KUNNAMANGALAM UNIT, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 571. 5. SRI.ROBIN O.D, "ODIYATTINGAL HOUSE", THOTTUMUKKAM P.O, AREKODE, KOZHIKODE-673 639. 6. SRI.BINOY M, MUTTERIYIL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE 673 572. 7. SRI.NOUSHAD THEKKAYIL, MEMBER,NCP,KUNNAMANGALAM UNIT, KOZHIKODE-673 571. 8. SRI.SASIDHARAN.O, OTHENATH HOUSE, MUNDIKKALATHAZHAM, KARANTHUR PO, KOZHIKODE -673 571. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA R5 & R6, R8 BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN R4 & R7 ADV SRI.S.K.AJAYAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.22906/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MEMBERSHIP. P2 COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE CALICUT CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER. P3 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11/11/08. P4 COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED DATED 11/08/2009. P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/07/10. P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/07/10 ISSUED BY THE CONVENOR, NATIONAL UNITY CONFERENCE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A) COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE PATIENT. R5(B) COPY OF THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION DATED 8/10/2008 OF THE PETITIONER (PATIENT SHRI.BENNY). R5(C) COPY OF THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION (UNDATED) OF THE PETITIONER. R5(D) COPY OF THE PUBLICATION OF GLOBAL PATENT DATED 17/1/2009. R5(E) COPY OF THE PUBLICATION OF GLOBAL PATENT ALONG WITH THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER. R5(F) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF DIL AT ERNAKULAM DATED 30/9/2009. R5(G) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF DIL AT CALICUT DATED 30/9/2009. R5(H) COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED 16/12/2009 OF THE DCC, CONVENER. R5(I) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/2/2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE MD, DIL. R5(J) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 19/3/2010 OF THE PETITIONER. R5(K) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF ADVOCATE SHRI.THAMPI JACOB DATED 22/5/2010 R5(L) COPY OF THE PAMPHLET OF IACS R5(M) COPY OF THE PAMPHLET OF DIL R5(N) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26/7/2010 TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION SIGNED BY 239 PERSONS. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.22906 of 2010-K ***************************** Dated this the 1st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection for him against the attempt of respondents 4 to 8 to make illegal demands against him and to afford protection to person and life of the petitioner, his wife and two children. 2. According to the petitioner, he has competence to practise medicine on the strength of Ext.P1. But that is not the question before us at all. According to the petitioner, he had entered into Ext.P3 agreement with one Salim on 11.11.2008. That agreement was cancelled by Ext.P4 agreement dated 11.08.2009. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 8 and some others allege that the said Salim had taken money from them on the strength of Ext.P3 agreement. The petitioner has nothing to do with respondents 4 to 8 or others who have paid amounts to Salim. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of respondents 4 to 8 taking law into their hands and vexing and harassing the petitioner to compel him to discharge the liability of the said Salim. The petitioner prays, and the learned counsel for the petitioner makes it absolutely clear in the course of his submissions before us, that the petitioner wants protection only against such illegal demands for money by resort to violence and culpable conduct by respondents 4 to 8. 3. Respondents 4 to 8 have entered appearance through counsel. It is their case that not the said Salim alone, but the petitioner has also collected amounts from respondents 4 to 8. It is their assertion that an amount of about Rs.20 crores had been collected. Party respondents 4 to 8 take the stand that the petitioner cannot wish away his responsibility and liability and he is very much liable to respondents 4 to 8 along with the said Salim to return amounts to them. 4. The petitioner stoutly denies this assertion. If respondents 4 to 8 have such a claim, they must stake that claim in accordance with law. They cannot take law into their own hands. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the short prayer of the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 8 may not be permitted to take law into their hands for enforcement of an alleged civil claim which the petitioner is liable to discharge to them. 5. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is true that some persons like respondents 4 to 8 are demanding amounts from the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner is also liable to return the amounts which are due to them on the basis of the transactions between them and the petitioner as also the said Salim and the brother of the petitioner. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, protection has been given to the petitioner against any such illegal conduct of attempting to settle a civil dispute by resort to violence. Appropriate orders may be passed against such illegal attempts to recover amounts allegedly due by resort to violence, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8 submits that respondents 4 to 8 have no intention of resorting to violence to recover amounts from the petitioner. They shall take steps in accordance with law for the redressal of their grievances. However, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8 submits that the petitioner is likely to make use of an order of police protection to frustrate their claims and also to frustrate proceedings legally initiated by them against the petitioner under the criminal law. Inasmuch as respondents 4 to 8 have no intention to take law into their hands and enforce any claim for money, no orders for police protection need be granted, submits the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8. At any rate, it may be clarified that such order of police protection even if granted cannot in any way affect the civil claims lodged by respondents 4 to 8 or criminal proceedings which respondents 4 to 8 have already initiated against the petitioner. 7. It is brought to our notice that W.P(c) No.30827 of 2010 has been filed by respondents 5, 6 and 8 against the petitioner herein and others and the very prayer in that petition is that investigation may, in accordance with law, be conducted in respect of allegations raised against the petitioner herein. That petition, it is seen, is being called with this Writ petition. We find no connection between the said Writ Petition and this petition. The same is hence delinked and sent back to the learned Single Judge to continue the proceedings. 8. Coming back to the facts of this case, we have adverted to all the relevant inputs. Amounts may be due to respondents 4 to 8 from the petitioner; it may not be due. It is not for us in this petition for police protection to express any opinion on the legitimacy or sustainability of such claims of respondents 4 to 8. It is also not necessary for us to make any pronouncement on the legal competence of the petitioner to carry on practice as a Physician on the strength of Ext.P1. Respondents 4 to 8 shall certainly be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings under the civil and criminal law for enforcement of their claim and to object to the allegedly illegal medical practice by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1. 9. But all these cannot justify resort to violence by respondents 4 to 8 to recover amounts allegedly due from the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8 assert that respondents 4 to 8 have no such intention and they shall not resort to violence. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that if there is any such attempt on the part of respondents 4 to 8 to take law into their hands and violently attempt to enforce the monetary claim staked by them against the petitioner, the police shall take necessary action to protect the life and person of the petitioner. In the light of these undertaking, we are satisfied that no specific directions deserve to be issued. We record the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader. We agree with the learned Government Pleader that there is no real threat to be perceived against the life or person of the petitioner. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that this petition need only be dismissed now. 10. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/