IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 25021 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUJEEB RAHMAN, AGE 37, S/O. ABDUL SAMAD, MANTHANATHU MELETHIL VEEDU, PALLICKAL DESOM, PALLICKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR CIRCLE-695601. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLICKAL POLICE STATION-695601. 4. NAJI, S/O. ABDUL BAHAB, BIJU HOUSE, PALLIKKAL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 5. JIJO, S/O. ABDUL VAHAB, BIJU HOUSE, PALLIKKAL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25021/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VAT CIRCLE, ATTINGAL. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.224/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION IN O.S. NO.224/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA. EXT.P4; COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/06/2011 IN I.A. NO.1149/2011 IN O.S. NO.224/2011. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6; COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 25021 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Sri.I.V.Pramod, learned Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 as directed by us. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that after he obtained Ext.P4 interim order of injunction against the respondents 4 and 5, they have been infuriated and are now threatening to the petitioner of danger to his life. He had submitted Ext.P5 complaint before the Police and according to him the police i.e. the 3rd respondent - Sub Inspector is not taking any prompt action upon Ext.P5. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks protection for his life only. Sri.Shajin S.Hameed learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appropriate relief in respect of the property in question has already been sought for from the Civil Court and the petitioner is prepared to agitate the civil right before the Civil Court itself. What the petitioner needs is only protection for life. 4. Having considered the averments in the writ petition, the OPRC.No.25021/2011 2 materials placed along with the writ petition and the submissions of Sri.Shajin S.Hameed and the the learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself issuing the following directions; If the 3rd respondent has received Ext.P5 and if so far no enquiry is conducted into the same, the 3rd respondent will conduct enquiry immediately into Ext.P5 by summoning the complainant(petitioner) as well as respondents 4 and 5 who are arrayed as accused therein. If the enquiry reveals that there subsists threat to the life of the petitioner, as the petitioner alleges, the 3rd respondent will ensure by taking such action as is warranted by the facts revealed in the enquiry that the petitioner's life is safe. The 3rd respondent shall always ensure that the civil dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents do not give rise to any law and order situation in the area of the property which is subject matter of the civil suit. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk OPRC.No.25021/2011 3