IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1369 of 2010(U) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DEVAKUMAR.S, S/O.SAHADEVAN, DEVABHAVANAM, ADHINADU VADAKKU.P.O, KULASEKHARAPURAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL SRI.S.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. VIJAYAN PEEDIKACHIRAYIL, KANDALLUR NORTH, PATTOLI MARKET.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.N. SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 1369 OF 2010 U --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th January, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent not to harass the petitioner on the false and vexatious representation made by the third respondent. A further direction is sought to take immediate and effective action on Ext.P1 representation filed by the petitioner. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner, is as follows: Petitioner's cousin is studying for M.B.B.S. Course in Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Science, Puducherry. The third respondent, is alleged to have enquired about availability of seats in various colleges to the petitioner and he suggested the name of the above college. It is his further case that the petitioner never went with the third respondent to get admission of his daughter. The further allegation is that the third respondent alleges that the college authorities have WPC.NO.1369/2010 U 2 received excess amount at the time of admission of his daughter and his daughter is admitted in the college and the third respondent wants to refund some amount he already paid before the college. For this purpose, the third respondent wants the help of the petitioner. It is further, inter alia, alleged that the third respondent has filed a representation. The third respondent has approached the police and the police is calling the petitioner to the police station to settle the dispute between the third respondent and the college. Petitioner has filed Ext.P1 before the first respondent to enquire into the matter and direct the Circle Inspector of Police to stop harassment. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even after filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has been called. Learned Government Pleader points that a petition was received from the third respondent and the petitioner was called, but he did not appear. It is further submitted that the second respondent, Circle Inspector of Police, WPC.NO.1369/2010 U 3 has advised the third respondent to take appropriate action as available to him in law. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner will not be called in connection with the matter. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is closed. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge