IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26897 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ISBATH BEEVI, NAZIRA MANZIL, KOTTOOR MANALIVILA, MANNOORKARA, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.T.SHIHABUDEEN SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYAR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. NOUSHAD, NAZIRA MANZIL, KOTTOOR MANALIVILA, MANNOORKKARA, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED FOR R5 SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED FOR R5 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).26897/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 4.8.10 SUBMITTED TO R2 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.C.70/10 OF JFMC, KATTAKADA EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.20.8.10 SUBMITTED TO R4 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL OKB //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26897 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Petitioner, mother of the 5th respondent, has instituted this writ petition seeking protection for the life of herself and her two daughters, who are the sisters of the 5th respondent. The writ petition is filed way back on 25.8.2010. This court never became inclined to issue any interim order of police protection. The 5th respondent through the counter affidavit has stated that all the allegations levelled against him in the writ petition are baseless. On the other hand the writ petition is instituted for preventing the 5th respondent from claiming his lawful share from the property which belongs to his deceased father. It is also stated that the 5th respondent has never threatened the petitioner. 2. The writ petition is coming up in the defect list. W.P.(C).26897/10 -2- There is no representation for the petitioner. Sri. Thoufeek Ahamed, learned counsel for the 5th respondent drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent. He submitted that the petitioner has never threatened the 5th respondent with any injury. He assured us that the 5th respondent will not in future also threaten the petitioner. 3. We record all the submissions of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and dispose of the writ petition declining the specific prayers in the writ petition. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb