IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 367 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35016/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ DR. CHERIYATH JYOTHI "MITHILAM", POVANKONAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695587. BY SRI.CHERIYATH JYOTHI (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CABINET SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, RASHTRAPATI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110004. 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. SR. G.P. SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 ASST. S.G. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.367 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to issue any direction in terms of the prayer made by the appellant. We have heard the appellant in person who has stated that he is a pensioner and is being harassed by people of his area. The learned Single Judge found that besides mere allegations of a general nature, the petitioner has not made out a case for any injury or threatened injuries to his person or liberty. On our specific query as to whether he has launched any complaint before anywhere, he has given us a copy of the petition filed by him before Kazhakoottam Police Station. On going through the same, we find that the appellant's grievance is that his previous land owners have withheld an advance deposit of Rs.20,000/- and they have trespassed into his house and threatened him so that he does not pursue his claim. We, therefore, thought of securing the money to the appellant and asked him whether W.A.367/2010 2 we should get enquiry conducted by issuing instruction to the Government Pleader. However, he does not appear to be interested in pursuing his claim against the so-called landlords. Besides generally stating that the appellant is apprehensive of interference with personal life, particularly in regard to the internet, telephone etc. maintained by him, he has not brought to our notice any specific case of interference by any authority or any one affecting his personal liberty or privacy. Since no specific grievance is established or allegation made against any authority of the State, we are unable to issue any direction. Consequently we uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeal. P.R.RAMAN Acting Chief Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms