IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7799 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. FATHIMA @ PATHUMMA,40 YEARS,W/O.POKER, KANJIRAKKODE VEEDU,KEEZHMURI P.O.,PULASSERY (VIA) KOPPAM,OTTAPPALAM TALUK,(WITHIN THE LOCAL LIMITS OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION,PALAKKADU),NOW R/AT. THEKENCHERRY NAMBRATH(H),P.O.PURAVANNOOR,VALACHERY (VIA),MALAPPURAM DIST.(VALANCHERY POLICE STATION) 2. POKER,45 YEARS,KANJIRAKKODE VEEDU, KEEZHMURI P.O.,PULASSERY (VIA)KOPPAM,OTTAPPALAM TALUK,(WITHIN THE LOCAL LIMITS OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION,PALAKKADU),NOW R/AT.THEKENCHERRY NAMBRATH HOUSE,P.O.PURAVANNOOR,VALACHERY(VIA),MALAPPURAM DIST.(VALANCHERY POLICE STATION LIMITS). BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.JOSEPH K.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.I. OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, PALAKKADU DISTRICT, REP. BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 4. MAJEED, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, POTTEMMEL, P..O.KEEZHMURI, PULLASSERY, KOPPAM OTTAPPALAM THALUK, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION. 5. MUHAMMED FAIZAL, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. AYISHA, KARAKUNNATHU P.O.OTTAPALAM THALUK, PALGHAT DISTRICT. (ADDL.R4 & R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26/5/2010 IN I.A.6384/2010) ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM FOR ADDL.R4-5 SRI.P.P.MOHAMED NOUFAL FOR ADDL.R4-5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 7799 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In this writ petition seeking police protection, this court did not become inclined to issue any interim order. Counter is seen filed by the respondents resisting the prayers. No representation for the petitioner. Even though the contentions raised in the counter affidavit are apparently strong, in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner, we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition only for default. The writ petition is dismissed for default. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk