IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2455 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.29074/2001 Dated 18/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- UDAYAMMA, W/O.CHANDRAN, MOONNUPURA VEETIL, PERUNNAI EAST, CHANGANASSERI, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER,SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2455 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment in OP No.29074 of 2001. Appellant had challenged Exts.P2, P4 and P5 communications issued by respondent No.2 in the Original Petition. The sum and substance of the case of the appellant was that she was not liable to pay Rs.56,430/- towards expenses allegedly met by the Police Department for affording police protection to her. 2. The learned Single Judge found that though the demand is justifiable, in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not proper to mulct the petitioner with the liability to pay the entire amount, especially since the protection order was not only for the petitioner, but also for respondents 1 and 2 in that case. Accordingly, the demand was reduced to 50% and the appellant was directed to pay a sum of WA No.2455 of 2009 -:2:- Rs.28,215/- as against the claim of Rs.56,430/-. The correctness of the above order is challenged in this appeal. 3. Admittedly the appellant was afforded police protection pursuant to the order issued by this Court. However, it is contended by the appellant that since the protection was afforded in terms of the order issued by this Court, she was not bound to meet the expenses as claimed by the respondents. 4. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the very purpose of seeking protection was not because of law and order problem in the area. The assistant of the police was sought purely to protect her property. We do not find any illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 5. In our view, since police personnel were posted at the residence of the appellant at her behest, she is bound to meet the expenses of the police personnel. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed. 6. However, we allow the appellant to remit the amount in WA No.2455 of 2009 -:3:- six equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before December 1, 2009 and the remaining five instalments on or before the instant date in the ensuing months. However, the appellant shall not be liable to pay interest. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb