IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6479 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, MANAMA HOUSE, UMAYANALLOOR.P.O., KOLLAM. 2. R. AJAYAKUMAR, S/O. RAJAPPAN, CHINNU NIVAS, MUKHATHALA.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERIHNTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM-691001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691001. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR.P.O., KOLLAM-691572. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTIYAM.P.O., KOLLAM-691302. 5. MUHAMMED SHAFI, KUTTIVILA THEKKETHIL UMAYANALLOOR.P.O., THAZHUTHALA VILLAGE, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. 6. SHIBEER MUHAMMED, SHIHAB MANZIL, PADANAYAR KULANGARA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY.P.O., KOLLAM. *** 7. JUBAIR, (DELETED) S/O. ABOOBAKER KUNJU, SHEMI BHAVAN, THRIKKOVILAVATTOM VILLAGE, KANNANALLOOR P.O. KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. (The name of 7th respondent is deleted vide judgment dated 4.3.2010 in W.P.(C) No.6479/2010) 8. ABDUL RINSHAD KHAN, S/O.ABDUL KALAM, KALAM MANZIL, THRIKKOVILAVATTOM VILLAGE, KANNANALOOR P.O., KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. WP(C).No. 6479 of 2010(H) -2- 9. MUKHATHALA GOPINATHAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KIZHAVOOR CHERRY, MUKHATHALA.P.O., KOLLAM. 10. SANALKUMAR, S/O. SAHADEVAN, KOCHUVILA VEEDU, PUTHUCHIRA, UMAYANALLOOR.P.O. KOLLAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR FOR R5,6 & 8 TO 10 SMT.A.SALINI LAL FOR R5,6 & 8 TO 10 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6479 of 2010-H ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. The 7th respondent is not served. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that relief against the 7th respondent is not pressed and that the 7th respondent may be deleted from the party array. Accordingly, the 7th respondent is deleted from the party array. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-- “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 4 to grant proper and adequate police protection to the petitioners, their family members and their employees to run the Petroleum Retail Outlet at Kottiyam beside NH-47 and the Colour Labs at Kottiyam and Kollam without any let or hindrance from respondents 5 go 10and their men by removing them 200 meters away. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing Ist respondent to consider Ext.P4 as expeditiously as WPC No.6479/2010 -2- possible.” 3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:--The Ist petitioner is one of the Directors of Al-Manama Group of Companies doing business in marketing consumer goods at various places in India and abroad. He is running a petroleum retail outlet at Kottiyam and another establishment having branches at Chinnakkada, Kollam and Kottiyam. The 2nd petitioner is the Manager of the retail outlet at Kottiyam. The 5th respondent was working as Purchase Manager of the Al-Manama Group of Companies and was located in Dubai. Allegations are made against him. In short, the case of the petitioners is that respondents 5 to 10 had made allegations against the owners of the Al-Manama Group of Companies and that they held a press conference and published libel defaming the petitioners and other Directors of the Al-Manama Group of Companies. More importantly, the case of the petitioners is that there is threat from respondents and that their life and properties are in danger. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 5, 6 and 8 to 10 would submit that respondents WPC No.6479/2010 -3- 5, 6 and 8 to 10 have no intention to obstruct the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that there are some complaints against the petitioners. 5. Learned Government Pleader also submits that crimes have been registered on the basis of the complaints filed by the petitioners and respondents. 6. While there can be no objection in the investigation being done in accordance with law, we direct that in case any threat by respondents 5, 6 and 8 to 10 against the petitioners or their business establishment mentioned, protection will be provided by respondents 2 to 4 for the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS