IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 29074 of 2001(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- UDAYAMMA, W/O. CHANDRAN, MOONNUPURA VEETTIL PERUNNAI EAST MURI, CHENGANASSERY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.MOHAMMED KUNHI SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANASSERY POLICE STATION. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL FOR R1 TO R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 47274/2001 & CMP 33388 of 2002 in CMP 47274/2001, both ; IN OP 29074/2001 DISMISSED 18.8.2009 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CMP 43743/99 IN OP 25935 OF 1999 DATED 15.10.99 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.12.99 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.1.2000 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 27.1.2000 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24.8.2001 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11.9.2001 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL AD CARD AND POSTAL RECEIPT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 29074 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging proceedings for recovery of charges payable under Government orders for police protection granted to the petitioner pursuant to the interim order in CMP 43743 of 1999 in OP 25935 of 1999 dated 15.10.1999. The amount demanded is Rs. 56,430/-. Petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in DIST. SUPDT. OF POLICE V. GEORGE, (2000) 1 K.L.T. 628 and contended that petitioner is not liable to pay any charges for grant of police protection. However, Government Pleader submitted that facts are different inasmuch as in the present case, petitioner sought police protection just to enforce civil court's order in a clear private dispute between the petitioner and another person. If the petitioner was granted police protection at her request, then certainly Government is entitled to recover charges. It is seen from the attached list along with demand notice that the amount demanded is at the rate in force for posting two police personnel in a day in the petitioner's house to 2 protect her. However, on going through Ext.P1 order, I find this Court only wanted the police to ensure that life of the petitioner as well as respondents 1 and 2 in the case is protected. It is not known why the fourth respondent chose to post two police personnel on a regular basis in the petitioner's house. Even though this Court has not ordered posting of police personnel on regular basis in the house of petitioner and respondents 1 and 2, this Court has ordered the Sub Inspector of Police to ensure that life of petitioner should be protected. Of course, it is for the fourth respondent to decide about the number of police personnel required to protect the life of petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. It is seen that only one police personnel was posted at a time to protect the life of the petitioner. This could probably be the minimum protection that could be granted pursuant to the interim order of this Court. Petitioner did not choose to approach this Court for modification of the order or for withdrawal of police personnel as and when threat to life ceased to exist. Petitioner has not explained how she gets protected herself after the police is withdrawn. In other words, obviously there was no law and order problem or other situation demanding police interference. Petitioner has therefore enjoyed the luxury of police protection on a pure property dispute with another 3 person. Government orders providing for charges for grant of police protection are not under challenge in this O.P. The decision relied on by the petitioner pertains to law and order problem wherein a person was not allowed to carry on business on account of interference by outsiders. Therefore the decided case does not stand in the way of Government recovering the charges in accordance with Government orders. However, the demand is for giving police protection to four persons. Therefore only 50% is to be recovered from the petitioner. Probably since there was no recovery proceedings against respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P. for police protection, this amount could not be recovered from them. In the circumstances, I allow the O.P. in part by reducing the demand from Rs. 56,430/- to Rs. 28,215/-. Petitioner is granted three months' time to make payment without interest. However, if payment of 50% is not made within three months, as stated above, interest at the rate applicable will be recovered from the petitioner. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4