IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 1134 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ANILKUMAR, S/O.P.A.VELAYUDHAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE PALLURUTHI PO., KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOCHI CUSBA POLICE STATION. 2. HDFC BANK, PALARIVATTOM BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.1134/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3/1/2009 LODGED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXHIBIT P1 COMPLAINT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.1134 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondent No.1 to afford police protection to the petitioner against culpable, contumacious and violent conduct indulged in/apprehended from second respondent, a Bank. 2. According to the petitioner, there were transactions between the petitioner and the second respondent bank. The second respondent bank is attempting to take law in to their hands and indulge in contumacious and culpable conduct against the petitioner in order to extract money from the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court. 3. When this petition came up for hearing on 12.1.2009, the Bench which dealt with the matter passed the following order. wpc No.1134/2009 2 “Admit. Urgent notice. Meanwhile, Police to see that law and order is maintained and recovery proceedings are taken, according to law and not through goondas.” 4. Thereafter, there has been no posting. Service is complete. No counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent. 5. At long last, the matter has been listed by the Registry for disposal. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim order which has remained in force for the last more than 2 years may be made absolute and proceedings may be closed. The learned Government Pleader also agrees to that course. The learned counsel for the second respondent prays for time to file a counter affidavit explaining the details of the amounts due. Details of the amounts due are not germane to the issue before us. We are satisfied that the interim order which has remained in force from 12.1.2009 can be made absolute and this proceedings closed. 6. In the result, a) This petition is allowed. wpc No.1134/2009 3 b) The interim order dated 12.1.2009 extracted above is made absolute. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/