IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32899 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- MANOJ KUMAR. S/O.Y.K. MEHBOOB SAHIB, RAFI HOUSE, CONTONMENT SOUTH, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 004. 3. SHAJISEYAR, SHEEBA MANZIL, THOPPIL NAGAR PLOT NO.12, KAVANAD MEDAYIL JUNCTION, KOLLAM-691 004. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 32899 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1/12/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THEN RECEIPT NO.592/DPTN./11-B, DATED 1/12/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 32899 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. On this writ petition coming up for admission, Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran learned Government has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and we have heard him also. 2. The petitioner alleges that there is threat to his life and limbs from the part of the 3rd respondent, who is described as a distant relative of his wife. According to him, the relationship between him and his wife is strange and two litigations are pending apart from the complaint before the police. A reading of the averments in the writ petition and the scanning of the various materials produced by the petitioner will show that the petitioner's wife is presently residing with the 3rd respondent. The petitioner's allegation is that there is subsisting threat to his life and limbs from the part of the 3rd respondent. He alleges further that though Ext.P1 petition was submitted by him before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent has not taken any W.P.(C) No. 32899 /2011 2 positive action. 3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that it is not necessary that we should take a decision on the correctness of the allegations of the petitioner. Ext.P1 is submitted and seen pending before the 2nd respondent. We direct the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P1 and to conduct an enquiry into the same. As part of the enquiry, the 2nd respondent will summon the 3rd respondent. If the enquiry reveals that there is truth in the allegation of the petitioner that there is subsisting threat to his life and limbs, then the 2nd respondent will take such action as is necessary for protecting the life and limbs of the petitioner from all danger. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk W.P.(C) No. 32899 /2011 3