IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18504 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.MOHANAN, S/O. R.VISWANATHAN, AGED 54, AMBADY, M 19/70, SANKAR NAGAR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUPDT. OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST CIRCLE, KOLLAM. 3. THOMAS GEORGE, KARUVELIL PUTHENPURAYIL, NEDUNGAD, PANACHEPALLY, P.O.KANJIRAPPALLY. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.18504/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: 'NIL' RESPONDENTS' EXT: EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.6.08. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.18504 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JULY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner submits, he entered into a contract with the 3rd respondent to do certain works. Though, the work was completed, the said respondent was not satisfied with it. So, he filed a petition before the police. The said respondent is the Personal Assistant of a member of the Legislative Assembly and under his influence, the police is summoning and harassing the petitioner, it is submitted. In the above background, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following relief. “ Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to refrain from either summoning the petitioner to the Police Station and (sic– or) directing to execute documents in the dispute with the 3rd respondent.” 2. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that the police summoned the petitioner, because a petition was received from the 3rd respondent. It is also submitted that the W.P.(C)No.18504/08 -2- police have no intention to harass the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit alleging that while executing the work as per the contract, the petitioner has cheated him by using inferior quality materials. Therefore, he filed Exhibit R3(a) petition before the police. He denies the allegation that he is harassing the petitioner. In fact, it was the petitioner, who was threatening the 3rd respondent, when he complained about the cheating. 3. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police have no intention to harass the petitioner. The 3rd respondent may work out his remedy in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn