IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31433 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JAMES,S/O.CHRISHTUDAS NADAR, JITHIN NIVAS, LOURDUPURAM,KANJIRAMKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR, SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,POOVAR POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.,- 695 561. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -695 524. 4. SAJEEV RAJ, S/O.RATNAKARAN NADAR, MITHUNAM,PERUNTHANNI,KANJIRAMKULAM -695 524. 5. AJI KUMAR,S/O.RAJU,THUNDUTHATTUPUTHEN VEEDU,ELAVUNINNA,KANJIRAMKULAM- 695 524. 6. BABU,BROTHER IN LAW OF 5TH RESPONDENT, THUNDUTHATTUPUTHEN VEEDU, ELAVUNINNA,KANJIRAMKULAM- 695 524. 7. SAMUEL,S/O.KARLOSE,CHANIVILA VEEDU, LOURDUPURAM,KANJIRAMKULAM -695 524. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.31433/2010-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE POSTAL MEMO EVIDENCING THE DESPATCH OF EXT.P.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE POSTAL MEMO EVIDENCING THE FORWARDING OF EXT.P.1. TO THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE POSTAL MEMO EVIDENCING THE FORWARDING OF EXT.P.1. TO THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.31433 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection against respondents 4 to 7 on the allegation that the writ petitioner, who borrowed money and could not repay the amount, is being threatened by respondents 4 to 7. Though complaint is filed by the petitioner, there is inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 3 and hence this writ petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. There is no appearance for the party respondents. The learned Government Pleader would submit that on the basis of the complaint received from the petitioner, the matter is enquired into and it is found that the petitioner owed money to the party respondents. The party respondents were called to the police station and they were asked not to threaten the petitioner and to proceed the matter in accordance with law. As of now, there is no problem. W.P.C.No.31433 of 2010 2 3. We record the said submission and dispose of the writ petition. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.31433 of 2010 3 W.P.C.No.31433 of 2010 4 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010