IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 32261 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.K.MARAKKAR, S/O.(LATE) KUNJALAN, KUNNATH PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, IRUNILAMKODE, MULLURKARA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BHASKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. K.K.SIDHIQUE, S/O.KUNJAPPU, KUNNATH PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, IRUNILAMKODE, MULLURKARA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. *ADDL R3 IMPLEADED SMT. AMINA, W/O K.K.SIDHIQUE, KUNNATH PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, IRUNILAMKODE, MULLURKARA POST, THRISSUR *IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 19.11.2009 ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R3 SMT.M.M.DEEPA FOR R3 SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN(MEDIATOR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kp WPC.NO.32261 OF 2009 APPENDIX P ETITIONER'S EXHIBIT: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.1387/09 IN OS.369/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKANCHERY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.11.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:32261 OF 2009 C ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. This petition was filed as early as on 10-11-2009 by the petitioner who perceived a threat to his life from respondents 2 and 3 - spouses. Petitioner had granted permission to a mobile tower company to establish a tower in the property belonging to him. This was not liked and appreciated by the respondents. They are allegedly threatening the life of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that protection is claimed. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through counsel. Though they have objections against the tower being established they have no intention to threaten the person or life of the petitioner. There is absolutely no necessity to issue any directions to the first respondent police officer to protect the life of the petitioner against alleged threats from respondents 2 and 3. Submissions of respondents 2 and 3 may be recorded and the petition may be dismissed submits the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. WPC 32261/2009 2 3. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from the first respondent submits that in the perception of the first respondent there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. If there be any threat necessary protection shall be granted to the petitioner. At the moment there is no necessity to issue any specific directions submits the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of the first respondent. We are not satisfied that any directions under Art.226 need or deserve to be issued. We accept the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of the first respondent. If there be any threat to the life of the petitioner necessary action shall be taken by the first respondent. Accepting that submission of the first respondent this writ petition is dismissed. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 32261/2009 3