IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17628 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SAJEEVAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. V.G.KARUNAKARAN, PUTHENPURA-THEKKETHIL, KAKKAKUNNU P.O., SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM. 2. BINDU, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. SAJEEVAN, PUTHENPURA - THEKKETHIL, KAKKAKUNNU P.O., SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM. 3. KOMALAM, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. LATE VIJAYA RAJAN, PUTHENPURA - THEKKETHIL, KAKKAKUNNU P.O., SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. KESAVAPILLA, SREESHYLAM, KARIKODE CHERIYIL, MANGADU VILLAGE, MANGADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. CHANDRASENAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KESAVAPILLA, 'THAPASAYA', KIDANGAYAM NORTH, SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM. 3. SASIKALA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. CHANDRASENAN NAIR, 'THAPASAYA', KIDANGAYAM NORTH, SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM. 4. VENUGOPALAN NAIR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KESAVAPILLA, KANNAKATHU-PUTHENVEEDU, KIDANGAYAM NORTH, SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAKKUVALLI POLICE STATION, CHAKKUVALLI, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEDER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON 30/06/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 17628 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, Apprehending threat to their life, the petitioners have approached this court for police protection. 2. On going through the petition, it is seen that there is a civil dispute between the parties and that the petitioners have procured an interim order. They would say that after the order was secured from the civil court, they were not able to take the benefit of the said order and also that they are being threatened by respondents 1 to 4 in this petition. 3. It is clear that the attempt is to seek police aid for implementation of the interim order, which is not permissible. If as a matter of fact there is any interference for the implementation of the order, the appropriate step to be taken by the petitioners is to approach the court, which issued the order for necessary reliefs. Under the guise of the interim order, the petitioners cannot seek police protection for their life. WPC. 17628/2009. 2 There is no merit in this petition. Needless to say that if any law and order problem arises, and on being intimated, respondents 5 and 6 will take necessary steps in that regard. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.