IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9397 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. RAJENDRAN S. @ BABU, KAVARATHU VEEDU, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. 2. AKHILA BABU R.S., AGED 15 YEARS (MINOR) D/O.RAJENDRAN S., KAVARATHU VEEDU, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANAD, KOLLAM. 6. ANEESH, THADAVILAYIL, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. 7. SHAMEER,SHANI MANZIL, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. 8. RUFY, KOTTARATHIL, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. W.P.(C).NO.9397 OF 2010 Y 9. REJI, RAJEENA MANZIL, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. 10. SANEESH, 'SANEESH MANZIL-KUZHIVELIL PADEETATHIL', NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. 11. ANEESH, 'SANEESH MANZIL-KUZHIVELIL PADEETATHIL', NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. 12. SUMAN, S/O.SOMAN, IYKKARA KUTTIVILA SUMIBHAVAN, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY. 13. LEELA, W/O.THULASEEDARAN, CHIRAYIL VEEDU NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. 14. LIJO, S/O.THULASEEDHARAN, CHIRAYIL VEEDU NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. 15. ANWAR, PALLELAZHIKATHU THEKKATHIL, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. 16. GITHESH, VAAZHOTTU, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. 17. SHAN, MEMANAYIL, KUZHIVELIL PADEETATHIL, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY. 18. SHAMEER, RAJEENA MANZIL, KUZHIVELIL PADEETATHIL, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY. ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP FOR R6-18 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.9397 OF 2010 Y PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALONG WITH A COVERING LETTER OF THE PRINCIPAL DATED 6.10.2009. EXT.P2COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2010. EXT.P3COPY OF THE LETTER WHICH WAS DROPPED AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE PETITIONER'S HOUSE DATED 16.3.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge p[[ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 9397 OF 2010 Y --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the first petitioner and his family members, without being obstructed in any fashion either by the other respondents or any other persons engineered by them. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1to 5 to afford effective police protection to the 2nd petitioner to appear for the ongoing SSLC. Examination.” WPC.9397 OF 2010 Y 2 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: Second petitioner is the daughter of the first petitioner, who is appearing for the SSLC Examination. It is stated that from 6.3.2010 onwards, the petitioners are put to severe threat and harassment by respondents 6 to 18 and their henchmen. They filed complaints. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel for respondents 6 to 18 submits that respondents 6 to 18 have no intention to cause any threat to the petitioners. He points out, on the other hand, that there are cases against the first petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioners and the wife of the first petitioner against any obstruction by respondents 6 to 18 and their men as and when required. In particular, we make it clear that effective protection will be granted for the second WPC.9397 OF 2010 Y 3 petitioner to appear for the ongoing SSLC Examination as against respondents 6 to 18 and their men. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge