IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13013 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- UNNI C.P., S/O.POULOSE, CHITTOOPARAMBAN HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR, EDAVOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODANADU POLICE STATION, KODANADU. 3. ALBERT JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, CHITTOOPARAMBAN HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR, KOOVAPPADY, EDAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM. G.P. SHRI. T.K. VIPINDAS FOR R1 & 2. ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13013 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1. : PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 26718 OF 2009 H DT. 5.10.2009 EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR NO.65/10 DT. 6.3.2010 EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT WITH RECEIPT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODANAD DT.27.1.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : EXT.R3(1) : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.R3(2) : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS BEFORE THE INSPECTOR OF GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R3(3) : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS BEFORE THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA. // TRUE COPY // K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 13013 of 2010 B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, has approached this Court seeking a direction to the second respondent to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner against the threat being made by the third respondent and his companions. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the third respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. A counter affidavit is filed denying the allegations made by the petitioner and a reply affidavit is also filed, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner W.P.(C).No. 13013 of 2010 2 refers to threat to his life by the third respondent. In this connection he has also relied on Ext.P2 complaint. 4. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the allegations made against the third respondent are not correct. He refers to proceedings taken against the petitioner under Section 107 Cr.P.C. He submits that there is no basis at all for the petitioner to approach this Court. 5. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the third respondent that the third respondent has no intention to cause any threat to the petitioner. We further direct that in case there is any threat to the petitioner by the third respondent, the second respondent will afford adequate protection for the life of the petitioner. We make it clear that we have not pronounced on the allegations raised, either by the petitioner or by the third respondent. We make it clear that any forum, before which any W.P.(C).No. 13013 of 2010 3 matter involving the petitioner and the third respondent comes up, the said forum will consider the matter untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm