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 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8432 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. ISSAC DEVASSY S/O. N.X.DEVASSY, NERIAMKOTT HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM.P.O., PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PUTHIYEDATHPARAMBU(H), NEAR CHENNANKULANGARA TEMPLE, PONEKKARA,EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. 2. INDU SATHYAN, D/O. SATHYAN, PUTHIYEDATHPARAMBU(H), NEAR CHENNANKULANGARA TEMPLE,PONEKKARA,EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY. 2. THE CIRLCE INSPCTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERI POLICE STATION. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERI POLICE STATION. 4. K.M.MANOJ, S/O. K.P.MANI, KOTTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,KADUNGAMANGALAM, THIRUVANKULAM.P.O., PIN-682305. 5. YAMUNA SATHYAN, W/O. K.P.SATHYAN, KOTTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,KADUNGAMANGALAM, THIRUVANKULAM.P.O., PIN-682305. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.N. SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.8432 OF 2010 D PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(CRL).NO.39/2010 DATED 03.02.2010 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P2COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 SEEKING FOR POLICE PROTECTION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 8432 OF 2010 D --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection for the life of the petitioners from respondents 4 and 5 and their agents/henchmen/goondas. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the party respondents as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: Petitioners are living as husband and wife and the second petitioner is the daughter of the fifth respondent. There is reference to W.P.(Crl).No.39/2010. Now, it is stated that respondents 4 and 5 are threatening the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 would deny the allegations and he would seek time to file Counter Affidavit. WPC.8432/2010 D 2 But, the learned counsel respondents 4 and 5 submits that respondents 4 and 5 have no intention to threaten or cause any harm to the petitioners. In the light of this submission, we see no reason why we should go into the merits of the allegations. Without going into the merits of the allegations as such, taking note of the facts and the submission made by the learned counsel for the party respondents, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to the life of the petitioners from 4 and 5 and their men as and when required. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge