IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 21261 of 2010(G) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SREEJA A MENON @ RANJINI MENON, W/O.RAJAGOPAL MENON,1/419,CHUNDALE,WAYANAD-673123, RESIDING AT FLAT NO:8 A,SANTHI RIVER DALE, THYKKOODAM,VYTTILA-682 019. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH SMT.T.H.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VYTHIRI POLICE STATION,VYTHIRI. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VYTHIRI POLICE STATION,VYTHIRI. 5. S.RAVINDRAN,S/O.SANKARAN,KARTHIKA, KAPPANKUNNU,CHUNDALE,WAYANAD-673 123. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.SARVOTHAMAN FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.21261 OF 2010 G PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1716/08 DATED 24.11.08 OF SRO, VYTHIRI. EXT.P1(A) TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1715/08 DATED 24.11.08 OF SRO, VYTHIRI. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.7.10. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.7.10. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(A) TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE NO.916963 DATED 16/9/2008. //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 21261 OF 2010 G ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th, September, 2010. JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing respondents 2 to 4 to provide adequate, sufficient and meaningful protection to the life of the petitioner, her family members and her workers and to the property from the 5th respondent and his men. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 2nd respondent to take immediate and effective steps/action pursuant to Ext.P2 in accordance with law.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner has purchased property in the year 2008 from the WPC.NO.21261/2010 G 2 fifth respondent under Exts.P1 and P1(a). Petitioner and her family members used to stay in the house. It is stated that the petitioner's husband also is having property which is purchased from the wife of the fifth respondent. Allegations are made against the fifth respondent of committing trespass and damaging the household utensils. The fifth respondent also threatened the servants of the petitioner and abused them by threatening that they will be eliminated if they continued to work under the petitioner. There are other allegations as to what had happened on 2.7.2010. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation followed by Ext.P3 and thereafter approached this Court, finding no response from respondents 2 and 4. 3. A Counter Affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent. In short, the case of the fifth respondent is that amounts are due (Rs.5,90,000/=). He has also produced a cheque issued by the petitioner's husband as per Ext.R5(a). It is also stated that contrary to the assurance of the petitioner's husband that he would pay the WPC.NO.21261/2010 G 3 cheque amount, the amount was not paid. It is also stated that in any event, the petitioner should have been good enough to advise her husband to discharge his liability on Ext.R5(a) cheque. The allegations raised against the fifth respondent in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition are denied as utter falsehood. The fifth respondent has also denied the allegation regarding the threat made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition against him. 4. A Reply Affidavit is filed by the petitioner and therein, apparently the case would appear to be that a cheque was given as security. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband has given the entire amount. 5. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties including the learned Government Pleader. The fifth respondent would reiterate that he has absolutely no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner or to the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. We record the said submission and dispose of the Writ Petition. We make it clear that if there is any WPC.NO.21261/2010 G 4 threat to the life of the petitioner by the fifth respondent brought to the notice of the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent shall look into the same and if the threat is found to be genuine, the fourth respondent shall afford protection to the life of the petitioner as against the fifth respondent. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// PS to Judge