IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 10411 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MOOSAKUTTY, S/O.USSANAR, AGED 55 YEARS, KOMATHUPARAMBU HOUSE, VAVULLIAPURAM P.O., VAVULLIAPURAM P.O., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. S.P.OF POLICE, PALAKKADU. 2. C.I. OF POLICE, ALATHUR, ALATHUR P.O., PALAKKADU DIST. 3. S.I. OF POLICE, ALATHUR POLICE STATION, ALATHUR, PALAKKADU DIST. 4. ALATHUR BLOCK PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYATH, ALATHUR P.O., ALATHUR TALUK. 5. KAVASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KAVASSERY P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKADU DIST. 6. TARU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TARUR P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKADU DIST. 7. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 38 YEARS, K.S.R.T.C. CONDUCTOR, MOOCHITHARA HOUSE, VAVULLIAPURAM, THARUR P.O. 8. SANTHOSH, S/O.ANDAVAN, AGED 35 YEARS, CHAPRAYIL HOUSE, VAVULLIAPURAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKADU DIST. 9. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 47 YEARS, KOOTAPPURA HOUSE, THODUKADU, VAVULLIAPURAM P.O., ALATHUR. 10. MOHANAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 38 YEARS, CHOLUMPULLY HOUSE, VAVULLIAPURAM, P.O.ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKADU DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1-3 ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. FOR R4 SRI.LIJU. M.P FOR R4 SMT.JEENA JOSEPH FOR R6 SRI.G.D.PANICKER FOR R6 SRI.N.RAGHURAJ FOR R5 SRI.A.V.RAVI FOR R5 SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY FOR R5 SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN FOR R7-10 SRI.BABY MATHEW FOR R7-10 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10411 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF TARUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN ON 4.8.2009. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ONE OF SUCH REPLY DT.24.5.2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.23.8.2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.28.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPLY OF THE ONE OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT.25.10.2008. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.10.11.2009. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.13.11.2009. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DT.13.11.2009. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD AND DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY// K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 10411 of 2010 B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or other direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide effective and adequate protection to the life of the petitioner from respondents 4 to 10 and their men. ii) issue a writ of mandamus, commanding respondents 1 to 3 to conduct proper investigation and bring the culprits before the court of law. iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing to conduct proper departmental enquiry about the misdeeds of respondents 4 to 6 and misuse of official vehicles for criminal offences.” W.P.(C).No. 10411 of 2010 2 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is a social worker stood for equity and fairness to all the people, especially to poor and helpless. Respondents 4 to 6, in collusion with the ruling party members, are misappropriating the major portion of the funds of the Central as well as the State Governments routed through the Panchayat. In view of the action of the petitioner, respondents 4 to 6 and their men are threatening the petitioner to withdraw the complaints filed by the petitioner. On 12.3.2010, the petitioner was brutally manhandled in the presence of the public and openly declared that they are implementing the orders from their party office. The petitioner has filed Ext.P8 request for police protection. 3. A counter affidavit was filed by the 6th respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that a complaint was received from the petitioner and his statement was recorded, in which he said that the case need not be registered and the party respondents need only be warned. The police warned the respondents that if they repeat the offence, case will be registered. W.P.(C).No. 10411 of 2010 3 5. We have already passed an interim order. In the circumstances of the case, we dispose of the Writ Petition by making the interim order absolute. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm