IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33331 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MURUGAN.B, S/O.BHASKARAN,ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, RUSSELPURAM.P.O,BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR, SMT.P.A.ANITHA, SMT.S.MEERA, SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DAYANANDAN, SUB REGISTRAR( RETD), DHANYA, PARUSUVAIKAL P.O,NEYYATTINKARA., 3. ANIL, GURUKRIPA,PERUMPAZHUTHUR P.O, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VIKRAMAN, KUTHATHILVILAKOM, KARUMKULAM, PULLUVILA, P.O,NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA, R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.33331/2010-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 29/10/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C) NO.33331 OF 2010 ============================ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following: i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, commanding and compelling the 1st respondent to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner, from the illegal acts, threats and abuse of the respondents 2 to 4 and their henchmen and enable the petitioner to reside peacefully in his house, move freely and go and do his work as a Conductor in K.S.R.T.C Depot at Neyyattinkara; ii)to declare that the petitioner are legally entitled to reside peacefully in house, move freely and go and do his work as a Conductor Wpc 33331/2010 2 in K.S.R.T.C. Depot at Neyyattinkara without any obstruction, threat, abuse or assault from respondents 2 to 4 and their henchmen and that the respondents 2 to 4 and their henchmen does not have any right to threaten, abuse or assault to the petitioner and that 1st respondent is legally bound to afford police protection to the life of the petitioner”. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. The petitioner is a Conductor in KSRTC. He married the daughter of the second respondent, which was solemnized concealing the fact of mental disturbance of his wife who many times attempted to commit suicide. The attempt of respondents 2 to 4 became hostile. The petitioner was informed that his wife died on 7.8.2010 on her way back from Alappuzha in the company of 2nd respondent. It is further alleged that many a times, she was assaulted and also that party respondents arranged goondas to wipe him off on three or four occasions, and petitioner was attacked and only due to interference of workers of KSRTC, the petitioner could save his life. A Counter affidavit is filed by respondents 2 to 4 denying the allegations. Wpc 33331/2010 3 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader submits that there is no threat and it is also stated that second respondent demanded back gold ornaments and money and that is all that has happened. In the nature of the apprehension we are not going into the merits of the allegations made by the parties. But in view of the apprehension raised, we dispose of the writ petition as follows. 4. If the petitioner makes any request for protection of his life from respondents 2 to 4 before the first respondent, first respondent will look into it and if it is found to be genuine, first respondent will afford protection to the life of the petitioner as against respondents 2 to 4. We make it clear that if there is any lis between the parties before any Court or Tribunal, the Court or Tribunal will be free to take a decision untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE lgk