IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 13516 of 2010(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. JALAJA, W/O.PAVITHRAN, AGED 40, KARINILATH HOUSE,NOW RESIDING AT MAPPUSSERRY HOUSE WEST OF MATHOOR TEMPLE, EROOR NORTH, TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. PAVITHRAN, AGED 62, S/O.SANKARAN, NOW RESIDING AT MAPPUSSERRY HOUSE, WEST OF MATHOOR TEMPLE, EROOR NORTH, TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,TRIPUNITHURA. 5. MURALI @ THANDAN MURALI, NEAR MATHOOR RAILWAY GATE, MATHOOR JUNCTION, EROOR.P.O, TRIPUNITHURA. 6. RADHA, W/O.MURALI @ THANDAN MURALI,NEAR MATHOOR RAILWAY GATE,MATHOOR JUNCTION, EROOR.P.O, TRIPUNITHURA. 7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, TRIPUNITHURA. R1 TO R4, R6 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 13516/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT P2: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.46/2010 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION. P3: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20/01/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY 4TH RESPONDENT ON 21/01/2010. P5: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 05/03/2010 P6: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 09/03/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.13516 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. This petition for police protection is filed by the petitioners, a couple, aged 62 years and 40 years, claiming issue of directions to respondents/police officials under Article 226 of the Constitution to afford police protection to them against culpable, contumacious and violent acts of respondents 5 and 6. 2. According to the petitioners, the second petitioner husband is working as a Security Personnel in a Bakery. Respondents 5 and 6 are husband and wife. The sixth respondent is also running a smaller shop near the shop where he works. The fifth respondent is allegedly a hot tempered and volatile person. He is guilty of contumacious and violent acts against the petitioners. His wife, the 6th respondent is also acting in collusion with them. It is in these circumstances that police protection is claimed by the petitioners. wpc No.13516/2010 2 3. This petition was filed as early as on 20.4.2010. When the matter came up for admission, the Bench which dealt with the matter, admitted the case on 23.4.2010 and directed the seventh respondent Sub Inspector of Police “to afford adequate police protection to the life of the petitioners, if the petitioners informed the Sub Inspector of Police any act of violence on the part of respondents 5 and 6.” That interim order has now remained in force for a period of one year. Respondents 5 and 6 have not been served and no steps have been taken for the issue of notice to respondents 5 and 6. 4. In the absence of respondents 5 and 6, we turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is absolutely no threat to the life or person of the petitioners. If there be any threat, as stated in the interim order dated 23.4.2010 which has remain in force without demur, the petitioners can complain to the 7th respondent who shall take necessary action to avoid any such act of violence. In these circumstances, no further directions under Article 226 are necessary, submits the learned Government wpc No.13516/2010 3 Pleader. 5. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently prays for time to take steps. In the circumstances of the case, we are not persuaded to agree that the matter need be adjourned to any other date. We take note of the fact that after 23.4.2010, there was no further posting of the case and the matter had come up only because the Registry had included this case in the list of unnecessarily long pending cases for disposal. We take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that even without the interim directions issued on 23.4.2010, the direction therein shall be complied with. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. 6. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/