IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23676 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JAYASEELAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN ACHARI, TC 3/1385, NLJ-10, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASHARAF, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, PROPRIETOR, "MALESIAN GOLD SOOK", OPP: KANIYAPURAM BUS STAND, RESIDING AT NOORNISA MANZIL, CHANNANKARA, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 301 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 014. 3. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 003. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKARIAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 306. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 306. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 582. 7. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR R2 TO R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.M.CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 23676/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 16/02/2010. P2 COPY OF THE LICENCE ISUED BY THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P3 COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/7/2010 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER'S BROTHER-IN-LAW BEFORE THE DY.S.P., ATTINGAL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K.M.JOSEPH & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C) NO. 23676 OF 2010 ============================ Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs. “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the respondents 2 to 7 to render adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner to start his jeweler business in shop numbers bearing T.C.9/1091, 9/1092 and 9/1093 at Sreekariyam Thiruvananthapuram and to the life of the petitioner and his family members. ii)to issue an appropriate direction to the respondents 2 to 7 not to register any criminal case against the petitioner on the basis of any false complaint by the 1st respondent, without investigating properly”. Wpc 23676/2010 2 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. Petitioner was a previous Manager of the first respondent Jewellery shop “Malesian Gold Sook”. It is stated that petitioner informed the first respondent that he wants to leave the shop because he wants to start independent business and he left the shop with the consent of the first respondent. After leaving the shop even though the petitioner was called back by the 1st respondent several times to rejoin the shop offering high salary, the petitioner refused since he wanted to start independent business. He took three shop rooms to start jewellery business. He obtained license from the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. He applied for a business loan of Rs.50,00,000/-. Ext.P1 is produced as the rent deed and Ext.P2 is produced as the license. Now, first respondent is threatening the petitioner that he will not be allowed to start business. 3. A counter affidavit is filed where a different version is given by the first respondent. According to him, first respondent detected the fraud and misrepresentation of the petitioner and he was sent out of the shop. He has denied the averments in paragraph 6 of the O.P and he says that he did not cause any threat to the petitioner and petitioner threatened the employee of the first respondent who detected the foul play of the Wpc 23676/2010 3 petitioner. Respondent filed Ext.R1(a) before the police which is prior to the filing of this writ petition. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the first respondent would reiterate that he has no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. It is also submitted that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. Besides recording the submission of the first respondent that he will not threaten the life of the petitioner, we direct that in case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner from the first respondent and if he files any complaint before the 7th respondent, 7th respondent will look into it and if it is found to be genuine, he shall afford protection to the life of the petitioner as against first respondent. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent that he will not cause any obstruction to the business of the petitioner. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE lgk