IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5598 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.M.HASSANKUTTY, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MEERAN RAWTHER, PARAPPIL HOUSE, KUMMANAM P.O., CHENGALAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.RUBY K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMARAKAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. 4. KANIYAPPA @ M.K.RAWTHER, ANISH BHAVAN, OLASSA P.O. KUMMANAM KARA, KOTTAYAM. 5. IBRAHIMKUTTY, PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, KUMMANAM KARA, CHENGALAM, KOTTAYAM. 6. ABDUL KAREEM, PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, KUMMANAM KARA, CHENGALAM, KOTTAYAM. 7. FAISY A.KAREEM, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, KUMMANAM KARA, CHENGALAM, KOTTAYAM. 8. ANSAL A.KAREEM, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, KUMMANAM KARA, CHENGALAM, KOTTAYAM. 9. MUHAMMED KUNJ @ MAMACHAN, CHATHANMALI, KUMMANAM, WPC 5598/08 CHENGALAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.K.K.RATNALATHA GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 5598/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 25.7.2007. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.7.2007 ISSUED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.7.2007 OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.12.2007 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.11,989/-. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.8.2007 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.1,00,488/-. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED NIL EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.66,968/-. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.2.2008 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.1. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONES. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE KSEB. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R4(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFTS (5 NOS.) DATED 13.07.2007 DRAWN ON SYNDICATE BANK, KOTTAYAM BRANCH. EXT.R4(b) – TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN EVIDENCING THE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT IN FAVOUR OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. EXT.R4(c) – TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2008 IN CRL.M.P.NO.34/2008 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.11/2008 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 5598 OF 2008-N ----------------------------------------- Dated 26th February, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner submits, he is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of waste paper. When the Director of Public Instruction invited tenders for the sale of old S.S.L.C answer papers, he submitted his tender. His tender was accepted and though he got this waste paper from the office of the D.P.I., the respondents 4 to 9, who are his brothers and near relatives, are causing obstruction to the sale of the same. They are threatening and harassing him. They are also wrongfully restraining his wife and daughter. Therefore, the daughter is not able to attend her school, it is submitted. Seeking police protection, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 representation before the police. Since the police did not extend any help, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide sufficient and adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family WPC 5598/2008 2 members; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide sufficient and adequate police protection to the petitioner for carrying out his avocation of purchasing and selling waste papers and allied goods against the illegal activities of respondents 4 to 9 and their henchmen; (iii) declare that respondent Nos.4 to 9 have no manner of right to interfere with the business and livelihood of the petitioner and his family members.” 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of himself and the 6th respondent. He submits that he has given Rs. Five lakhs in the form of demand drafts for furnishing security before the D.P.I., as part of the tender conditions. After the tender proceedings were over, the petitioner got back the said demand drafts and misappropriated the amounts covered by those demand drafts. So, the party respondents including the 4th respondent demanded payment of that amount. It is submitted that the petitioner is an accused in several cases, including some under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At present he is absconding. The 6th respondent is a surety for one of the criminal cases, in which the petitioner is an accused. Since he is absconding, the said respondent is facing M.C proceedings before the criminal court concerned. All the allegations of the petitioner are unfounded. They submit that they are not restraining the petitioner's wife or daughter or other family members. WPC 5598/2008 3 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that on enquiry it was found that all the allegations of the petitioner are absolutely unfounded and false. The allegation regarding the alleged obstruction to his wife and daughter is also made without any basis. The police also submitted that the petitioner is presently absconding. 4. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and counter allegations, we feel that this is not a fit case where we should invoke our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to grant protection to the petitioner. The petitioner may invoke the ordinary remedies available to him under the Codes of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure. Without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to approach other forums, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/