IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16291 of 2010(J) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ALI HASAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED MUSTAFA RAWTHER, M.M.HOUSE, EDATHARA, KALANJOOR P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM. 2. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 5. ANITHA S., WORKING AS ASSISTANT MANAGER, HRD, SBT HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. AJITH KUMAR, KARTHIKA, KURISHUMUTTOM, PEYAD P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. A.M.SHAREEF, NOW RESIDING AT ANUGRAHA, T.C./R/1699/3, VETTAMUKKU, P.T.P.NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C).NO.16291 OF 2010 J 8. ABDUL SALAM, PUTHANPURAYIL (105) VIKAS NAGAR, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM. 9. ABDULLA, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, POURNAMI (83), JAWAHAR NAGAR, PATTATHANAM EAST, KOLLAM R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 16291 OF 2010 J --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st May, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Prayer in the Writ Petition is for a mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate and effective protection to the life and property of the petitioner from respondents 5 to 9 and their men. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a retired AEO. Fifth respondent is his wife, seventh respondent is his father-in-law and the 8th respondent is his co-brother. Respondents 6 to 9 are described as strangers to the petitioner. It is stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the fifth respondent did not work. Petitioner was forcibly evicted. There is a proceeding under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, wherein he was granted bail. There are cases pending before the Family Court. Petitioner approached this Court and obtained Ext.P1 Judgment. WPC.16291/2010J 2 In Ext.P1 Judgment, this Court, inter alia, stated as follows: “The Writ Petition is hence disposed of making it clear that in the unlikely event of any such attempt on the part of the 3rd respondent or her henchmen, it will be open to the petitioner to approach respondents 1 and 2 in which case those respondents will render necessary protection to the petitioner.” 2. After Ext.P1, it is stated that respondents 6 to 8 and their hired people made several attempts to assault the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the copy of the FIR. Respondents 3 and 4 are stated to be news published in the media. Petitioner filed Ext.P5 complaint. 3. We notice that in Ext.P1 Judgment, which we have referred to, respondents 1 and 2 therein who are the Superintendent of Police, Kollam and Sub Inspector of Police, Kollam, who correspond to respondents 3 and 4 in this Writ Petition, have been directed to give protection to the petitioner. It was stated that such protection is to be granted, if there is any WPC.16291/2010J 3 attempt on the part of the fifth respondent herein or her henchmen. In such circumstances, we do not think that it may be appropriate for us to again consider yet another Writ Petition wherein the prayer is the same. If the Police Officers do not act in compliance with Ext.P1 Judgment, it is certainly open to the petitioner to take action for disobedience to the Judgment. Without prejudice to such right, the Writ Petition is closed. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge