IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33798 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ABDUL RASHEED, CASIM MANZIL, VAZHIMUKKU, BALARAMAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.ANZAR BASHEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA-PIN 695121. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA-PIN 695121. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 4. A.SALIM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, KUTTI COTTAGE, KAITHOTTUKONAM, BALARAMAPURAM.P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK-695501. 5. AYUBKHAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, GREEN VILLA, PAZHAYA ROAD, KALLAMBALAM, BALARAMAPURAM.P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK-695501. 6. KAMALKUTTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, K.KUTTY COTTAGE, VETTUVILAKAM, VAZHIMUKKU, BALARAMAPURAM.P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK-695501. 7. NAJEEB, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O.SALIM, KUTTI COTTAGE, KAITHOTTUKONAM, VAZHIMUKKU, BALARAMAPURAM.P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK-695501. 8. SAJEEV, C/O.APPI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, RAVIAPUTHENVEEDU, VAZHIMUKKU, BALARAMAPURAMP.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK-695501. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R4 BFY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.33798 OF 2010 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION GIVEN TO THE IST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 1.11.2010. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.33798of 2010-Y ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “a) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner against the atrocities of the respondents 4 to 8.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is one supporter of the LDF candidate in Vazhimukku Ward of Neyyattinkara Municipality. During the election campaigning there was great threat against the petitioner and others that if the UDF candidate is defeated then the persons who worked effectively would be killed using motor vehicles under the guise of accidents and the residence would be bombed and destroyed and the hand and legs would be mutilated and the wife and children of the persons would be attacked. The LDF candidate won the election. Therefore, WPC No.33798/2010 -2- it is stated that after declaring the results respondents 5 to 8 after consuming alcohol and reached Vazhimukku junction and used filthy language against the petitioner and others. When the LDF procession has reached the Vazhimukku junction respondents 4 to 8 and their people using dangerous weapons attacked the people who were coming in procession and caused great threat over the area. The petitioner is a targeted man of the respondents 4 to 8. He is a business man. There is threat to his life. Petitioner has filed complaint. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is appearance for the 4th respondent. There is no appearance for the other respondents. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that a counter affidavit is being filed. He completely denies the allegations. He submits that, in fact, one of the respondents (6th respondent) was in jail from 27.10.2010 onwards. We dispose of the writ petition as follows: In view of the apprehension of the petitioner, without pronouncing on the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner WPC No.33798/2010 -3- against the party respondents, in the nature of the case we direct that as and when the petitioner complains to the 2nd respondent of any threat to his life from respondents 4 to 8, the 2nd respondent will look into the complaint and if the threat to the life of the petitioner from respondents 4 to 8 is found to be genuine then he shall afford protection to the life of the petitioner as against respondents 4 to 8. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS