IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30141 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.SIVAKUMAR, KARTHIKA, VALIYAVILA, KOTTUKKAL, NELLIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.V.SOBHANA SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF/COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, L.M.S.JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 696 033 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 501. 4. S.MANIYAN @ ESACK MANI, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PAYATTUVILA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 121. 5. ANANTHASAYANAN @ SANTHOSH KUMAR O.S., VANDAZHANINNAVILA VEEDU, NETTATHANNI, KOTTUKAL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 121. 6. SIVARAJAN, RAJ NIVAS, PULLIKUDI, MULLOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 121. -: 2 :- 7. ARUN DANI, MUKKAMPALA, NELLIMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 121. 8. BIJU V.T., PLAVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, MUNNATTUKONAM, PAYATTUVILA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 121. 9. W. BIJU, THERIVILA VEEDU, NETTATHANNI, KOTTUKAL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 121. 10. P.S.HARIKUMAR, AJI NIVAS, PUNNAKULAM, KOTTUKAL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 121. 11. R.SATHEESH, ELANJIKUNNUVILA VEEDU, KOTTUKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 121. 12. SREEKUMAR.S., PUNNAVILA VEEDU, KOTTUKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 121. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ROY THOMAS (R1 -R3) BY ADV. SRI. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN (SC FOR R2) BY ADV. SRI. SUMAN CHAKKARAVARTHY (R4-R12) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20/10/2011. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21/11/2011 EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THYE COMMUNICATION DATED 28/10/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //true copy// P.S. to Judge R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 30141 of 2011-P ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner as he apprehends violent and contumacious interference with his right to appear for the meeting of the Kottukal Panchayat which is scheduled to take place on 17/11/2011. According to the petitioner, he was the elected President of the Panchayat formerly. He has now been removed from that post by passing of a non-confidence motion. A meeting of the Panchayat is scheduled to be held on 17/11/11. He intends to attend, participate and seek re-election at that meeting. Respondents 4 to 12 are persons belonging to rival political organizations. The petitioner apprehends that his right to take part in the meeting of the Pachayat may be violently obstructed by respondents 4 to 12. 2. Respondents 4 to 12 have entered appearance. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 12 submits that respondents 4 to 12 are categorically undertaking before this Court that they W.P.(c) No. 30141 of 2011 -: 2 :- shall not in any way cause any obstruction to the petitioner, if he wants to attend the meeting of the Panchayat or participate in such meeting. Inasmuch as respondents 4 to 12 have no intention to any manner interfere with the right of the petitioner, no order of police protection is liable to be granted in favour of the petitioner against respondents 4 to 12. There is possibility that such order of police protection may be mis-utilized by the petitioner, contends the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 12. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents 1 and 3, submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is no necessity to arm the petitioner with any blanket order of police protection. However, the learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents 1 and 3, undertakes that if there be any contumacious interference with the right of the petitioner to take part in the meeting of the Pachayat and exercise his right as member of the Panchayat, the petitioner can complain, whereupon respondents 1 and 3 shall take adequate and necessary action to protect the right of the petitioner. 4. We record the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 12. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents 1 and 3. We are W.P.(c) No. 30141 of 2011 -: 3 :- satisfied that it is not necessary to issue any specific directions under Art.226 of the Constitution now. Suffice it to say that we accept the submissions of respondents 4 to 12 and respondents 1 and 3. If there be any attempt to interfere with the right of the petitioner contumaciously and violently, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain to respondents 1 and 3 whereupon necessary action shall be taken by them. 5. Recording the above submissions and undertaking, this writ petition is allowed in part to the above extent. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- V. CHITAMBARESH (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge