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 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16495 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ATHULYA CONSTRUCTIONS, TOLL JUNCTION, KULASSEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., VAIKO, KOTTAYAM DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, K.SHAJIMON. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 4. VINOOP KUMAR V.P., LESHMI NIVAS, PANAVALLY P.O., CHERTHALA. GP SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1-R3 SRI.P.I.JAYAKUMAR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REGISTRATION DT.28.11.2008. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE VAT CERTIFICATE DT.3.11.2008. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DT.23.10.2008 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DT.25.8.2008 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.8.5.2010 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT THRIFT SHEET DT.5.2.2009 EXT.R4(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT THRIFT SHEET DT.12.4.2010. EXT.R4(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DT.15.7.2009 EXT.R4(d): TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DT.12.8.2009 EXT.R4(e): TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DT.20.8.2009 EXT,R4(f) : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION REGISTER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OFFICE, VAIKOM 3.6.2010 // TRUE COPY// K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 16495 of 2010 J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is a firm carrying on works in connection with drinking water project under the Kerala Water Authority. He hired one hitachi vehicle from the 4th respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.75,000/- Since it is an old vehicle there happened frequent break downs. The 4th respondent could not provide its repairs and hence the petitioner had to hire another vehicle. The 4th respondent and his men are blocking the said vehicle. 3. A counter affidavit is filed, in which it is stated that they are not obstructing the petitioner. It is submitted that the cheques issued by the petitioner for settlement of the claims W.P.(C).No. 16495 of 2010 2 between the petitioner and the 4the respondent were dishonoured and there is a money claim. No reply affidavit is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amounts have been paid. It is open to the 4th respondent to approach the competent forum for realisation of the amount from the petitioner. 5. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the 4th respondent will not obstruct the work being carried out by the petitioner. We direct that in case there is any obstruction from the 4th respondent or his men, effective protection shall be given to the petitioner for carrying out his work by respondents 1 to 3. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm