IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 6758 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LALITHAMMA, D/O. CHELLAMMA, AGED 67 YEARS, SREEVILASOM, MUKUNTHARA DESOM, KALLIKKAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM(RURAL),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SATHYAM, S/O.THANKAVELU AGED 48 YEARS, SATHYABHAVAN, KALLIKKADU, MAILAKKARA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P. SHRI T K VIPINDAS ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN PANICKER FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6758 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY // K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 6758 of 2010 T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “a) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 & 2 to provide adequate and sufficient protection to the life of the petitioner free from the harassment and intimidatioin of 3rd respondent and his henchmen. b) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the petitioner is able to reside in her house free from the threat of 3rd respondent.” W.P.(C).No. 6758 of 2010 2 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is looking after the rubber plantation in the property given to her daughter. She engaged the third respondent for rubber tapping. Almost 14 sheets were got daily. After some time the number of sheets decreased. The third respondent engaged his wife for tapping. Petitioner found that about 1000 rubber sheets were stolen and preserved in the house of the third respondent. Petitioner claimed ownership of the rubber sheets. The third respondent manhandled and threatened the petitioner. She is aged 67 years. She is living with her husband, who is bed ridden due to paralysis. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the third respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for the third respondent submits that there is a labour dispute between the parties. He also submits that the third respondent will not harass or threaten the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection to the life of the W.P.(C).No. 6758 of 2010 3 petitioner free from the harassment and intimidation of the third respondent and his henchmen. We further make it clear that respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure that the petitioner is able to reside in her house without any threat from the third respondent. We also make it clear that we have not pronounced on the merits of the labour dispute, which can be proceeded in accordance with law. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm