IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15816 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TROSI JAYAN, JAGADAMBIKA VILASOM, NJEKKAD, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL. 2. MADHU KUMAR, M.M.NIVAS, POOTHAKULAM P.O., PARAVUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P A SALIM SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN FOR R2 SRI.R.SURESH FOR R2 SMT.V.RENJU FOR R2 SRI.P.ANIYAN FOR R2 SMT.M.A.RAMITHA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO.15816 OF 2009-V -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 7th August 2009 Judgment BHAVADASAN, J. The petitioner, who claims to be the Chairman of Punarjani Charitable Trust, has approached this court seeking police protection. 2. The trust has been constituted with the object of providing help, aid and residence to the old and aged people in the society, suffering from various diseases. The trust took a residential building for the said purpose on rent from one Smt.Jayasree. A rent deed was also executed. The rent was being paid regularly. The building accommodates several aged people, suffering from various diseases. According to the petitioner, the second respondent is said to have preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner was not vacating the building taken on rent. Thereupon the petitioner was called to the office of the 1st respondent. She went to the office of the 1st respondent and appraised the said WPC 15816/09 2 respondent of all the facts. According to the petitioner, the attitude of the 1st respondent was hostile and his behaviour towards her was far from satisfactory. She was threatened that unless she vacates the premises within three months, she will have to face serious consequences. The petitioner contended that on 1.6.2009 and 4.6.2009, the Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala, along with some other Police Constables, came to the building taken on rent by the trust and threatened the petitioner and others. Later on, it is stated that the 1st respondent abused the petitioner over phone and threatened her of severe consequences. The petitioner would say that the respondents have no right to interfere with the affairs of the trust and she has not committed any act, warranting interference by the 1st respondent. Pointing out that she is being harassed and seeking appropriate reliefs, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 3. A memo has been submitted by the learned Government Pleader enclosing a report received by him from the first respondent. It is seen from the report that the 1st respondent WPC 15816/09 3 conducted an enquiry pursuant to the direction issued to him. The said respondent went to building where the trust is being run and found that the space available is too inadequate to accommodate the inhabitants. The building had 22 inhabitants. It is seen that the petitioner has not obtained any recognition from the Social Welfare Department to run the trust. As per the report, the inmates consists of orphans, mental patients, mentally retarded persons etc. There is no sufficient facility and space available to the inmates and the situation is pathetic and the place is unhygienic. 4. It seems that the Human Rights Commission has visited the institution on 04.10.2008 and an interim order was passed on 30.10.2008 in which the Commission has expressed its concern and deep displeasure over the situation existing in the institution. It is further stated that on 24.04.2009 one of the inmates by name Smt.Nirmala, who is mentally ill, was brutally assaulted by another inmate and the Secretary of the Trust. On getting information, the Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala went to the spot and the victim was removed to the hospital. A crime has WPC 15816/09 4 also been registered with reference to the incident. As per the report of the Human Rights Commission, it is seen that the petitioner was unable to produce any documents before the Chairman of the Commission, to justify the running of the institution. 5. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, controverting the allegations in the Writ Petition. It is pointed out by the said respondent that he has no intention to evict the petitioner by force and he assured that he will seek eviction only in accordance with law. 6. On going through the records, it becomes very evident that the situation is not as stated by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent speaks for itself. Added to this, is the report of the Human Rights Commission referred to by the first respondent. It is very evident that the space available in the building is too insufficient and the inmates are staying in an inhuman condition. There is nothing to indicate that there was any sort of threat from anybody as alleged by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The second WPC 15816/09 5 respondent has made it clear that he does not intend to take law into his hands. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 15816/09 6