IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33781 of 2011(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.K.SANJEEV, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, C0089/111(5),A4 APARTMENT, FATHIMA BUILDING, OPST. GOVERNMENT MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRIKAKARA, KOCHI-21. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM-682011. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM-682031. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682021. 5. C.H.YOUSEF, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.BAKKAR, CHANGALIMOOLAYIL HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI-21. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SUSHEEL CYRIAC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.33781/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.995/2011 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. P2:- COPY OF THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PASSED BY HONOURABLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.A.NO.7108/2011 IN O.S.NO.995/2011. P3:- OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/11/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4/12/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 33781 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner, who claims to be a tenant of the building belonging to the 5th respondent, complains that the 5th respondent is trying not only to evict him from the building forcefully but is also threatening him with danger to his life and limbs. It is also alleged that with the intention of compelling the petitioner to vacate the building immediately, the electricity supply was once disconnected by the 5th respondent. Even though the police were moved, they have not taken any action. Hence, this writ petition seeking directions for police protection. 2. On this writ petition coming up for admission Sri.Susheel Cyriac learned Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and we have heard him also. 3. Having considered the averments in the writ petition, various documents produced along with the same and the submissions addressed before us by Sri.R.Divakaran learned W.P.(C) No. 33781 /2011 2 counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Susheel Cyriac learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that the question of rendering police protection against the forceful eviction of the petitioner from the building is a question which is presently being considered by the learned Munsiff. It is open to the petitioner to seek enforcement of Ext.P2 injunction order by the learned Munsiff and in that process the learned Munsiff is competent to issue directions to the police. 4. Now coming to the question whether the police protection should be issued in respect of the lives of the petitioner and his family members who are residing along with him, we feel that it is not necessary that we take a decision as to the truth or otherwise of the petitioner's allegations. Ext.P4 petition has been submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent and we are told that a copy of Ext.P4 is submitted to the 4th respondent also. We direct the 4th respondent to take up the copy of Ext.P4 received by him immediately and to treat the same as an original petition submitted before himself. The 4th respondent will conduct an immediate enquiry into Ext.P4. If the enquiry reveals that there is truth in the allegation of the W.P.(C) No. 33781 /2011 3 petitioner that there is subsisting threat to his life and limbs from the part of the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent shall take such action as are necessary for protecting the life and limbs of the petitioner from the 5th respondent. It is open to the 4th respondent to summon or meet the 5th respondent as part of the enquiry. The petitioner is directed to send a copy of this judgment by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due to the 5th respondent as soon as he receives the same. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk W.P.(C) No. 33781 /2011 4