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 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16286 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUDARSANAN VIJAYKUMAR, PUTHENVEETTIL BUNGLOW, OPPOSITE KUDAPPANAKKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SI OF POLICE, PERURKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SAJAN, KOTTAKATHU VEEDU, LOCATED ON THE ROADSIDE ON THE WAY TO PAZHAVANGADI GANAPATHI TEMPLE TO VARMA TRAVELS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SHERIN, KOTTAKATHU VEEDU, LOCATED ON THE ROADSIDE ON THE WAY TO PAZHAVANGADI GANAPATHI TEMPLE TO VARMA TRAVELS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P. SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R3 ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R4&5 SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH FOR R4&5 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R4&5 SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R4&5 SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. FOR R4&5 SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN FOR R4&5 SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI FOR R4&5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16286 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.5.4.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.6.5.2010 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN CRIME NO. 87/2010 OF CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION OF BANGALORE URBAN POLICE STATION. // TRUE COPY // K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 16286 of 2010 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and his family. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the party respondents denying the allegations raised against them. 4. Whatever that be, in view of the apprehension of the petitioner, we dispose of the Writ Petition by making the interim order absolute. We make it clear that we have not gone into the W.P.(C).No. 16286 of 2010 2 merits of the allegations raised by the petitioner and any forum where the matter comes up will deal with the matter untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm