IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16276 of 2010(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MANOJ, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, THANIKKAL HOUSE, CHEERAKUZHI, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. *2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION. (The address of 2nd respondent is changed as per order dated 2.6.2010 on I.A.No.6868/2010) 3. SREENIVASAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, NEDUVELIL HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA. 4. SUKUMARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, NEDUVELIL HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA. 5. HARIDAS, KUNNATH HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA, P.O.PAZHAYANNUR. 6. SUBIN, S/O.HARIDASAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA, P.O.PAZHAYANNUR. 7. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.ANNACHI, CHEERAKUZHI HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA, P.O.PAZHAYANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP FOR R3-7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16276/2010 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.24383 OF 2009 DATED 22.10.2009. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15.4.2010 FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.582/SP-CAMP/PTN/10/R . RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3A. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE VOTERS LIST. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16276 of 2010-H ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks police protection. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is working as a driver of a tipper lorry for transporting and supplying bricks from the manufacturing unit in the name “Heleo Industries”. The unit is run by one Geetha. There was obstruction by respondents 3 to 7 the transporting of bricks from the manufacturing unit. The proprietor of the unit approached this Court and obtained Ext.P1 judgment. It is also stated that earlier respondents 3 to 7 had attacked one Alias Joy who is the member of the above unit and he was hospitalized. Now, respondents 3 to 7 have turned against the petitioner and blocked his work. It is stated that on 7.4.2010 the members of the CITU one Musthafa and Kannan obstructed petitioner's vehicle and attacked the petitioner. He was admitted to the Government Hospital Pazhayannur. Petitioner was discharged from the hospital. Respondents 3 to 7 again threatened that if the petitioner is going to transport the materials he will be finished by the respondent union. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 petition to which Ext.P3 receipt is given. WPC 16276/2010 -2- 2. Respondents 3 to 7 filed counter affidavit. It is inter alia stated in the counter affidavit that they were not aware of any dispute pending between the petitioner and any workers or union. The address of the petitioner is disputed. It is stated that the respondent is impleaded only because he is an active worker of the CPM. Petitioner is not working as driver. There is no incident as alleged by the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is a shady character and always involved in crimes and anti social activities. Petitioner is an accused in several cases pending investigation and respondents have every reason to suspect that the present move is also with a view to prevent the respondents from actively participating in the ensuing panchayat election. It is stated that respondents had no association with the petitioner and not involved in any dispute in which petitioner is a party in any manner. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there are five crimes as of now registered against the petitioner. 4. We record the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7 that respondents 3 to 7 have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. However, in view of the apprehension of the petitioner, in WPC 16276/2010 -3- case the petitioner brings to the notice of the 2nd respondent any complaint of any threat by respondents 3 to 7 the 2nd respondent will afford adequate protection to the life of the petitioner as against them. We make it abundantly clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of investigation of crimes already registered against the petitioner in accordance with law. Further, we make it clear that this judgment should not be understood as meaning that this is a protection for the petitioner to commit any offence or if any such offence is committed in future the same should not be investigated in accordance with law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS