IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 438 of 2011(D) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- K.C.POULOSE, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 68 YEARS KIDANGEL HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, MALAYATTOOR KARA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.PAULOSE (PARTY IN PERSON) SMT.SINDHU THANKAM RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. A.J.THOMAS, K.S.R.T.C DRIVER S/O.JOSEPH, AREEKAL, ANGAMALY PIN 683 572. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TRIVANDRUM -01 3. STATE OF KERALA REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANGAMALY POLICE STATION PIN 683 572. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE R2 & 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 438 of 2011(D) ----------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT REF. NO.11144/CM/2010 DT. 15TH MAY, 2010 EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ISSUED FROM OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 17.05.2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT : NIL ------------------------------------ / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:438 OF 2011 D ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th January, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for issue of directions to respondents 2 and 3 to afford police protection to him as he apprehends untoward violent and culpable conduct on the part of the first respondent directed against him. 2. Notice was ordered to all the respondents. First respondent has entered appearance through counsel. Respondents 2 and 3 have appeared through the learned Govt. Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that both the petitioner and the first respondent were former employees of the KSRTC. They have both retired on superannuation from the KSRTC. According to the first respondent the petitioner is making false, frivolous and vexatious allegations against the first respondent without any justification or valid reason. The learned counsel for the first WPC 438/2011 2 respondent submits that a detailed and anxious perusal of Ext.P1 must itself satisfy the Court about the totally unsustainable allegations raised against the first respondent by the petitioner. In any view of the matter learned counsel undertakes that the first respondent has no intention to indulge in any way in any untoward culpable or violent acts against the petitioner herein. He has no intention to obstruct ingress and egress to the residential building of the petitioner. The first respondent poses no threat to the life and liberty to the petitioner. The anxiety of the first respondent is only that if any blanket order of police protection were granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is likely to misutilise the same to vex and harass the first respondent. In these circumstances this petition may be dismissed with exemplary costs, submits the learned counsel for the first respondent . 4. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 2 and 3 submits that in the perception of respondents 2 and 3 the petitioner faces no threat to his life or person at the hands of the first respondent. However, the WPC 438/2011 3 learned Govt. Pleader undertakes that if there be any genuine perception of such threat or risk to the life and person of the petitioner from the first respondent, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain to the second respondent or third respondent whereupon necessary action to abate such threat/risk shall promptly be taken by respondents 2 and 3. In these circumstances no further directions are necessary, submits the learned Govt. Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in that event undertaking of the first respondent as also the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 may be recorded. Petitioner is satisfied if those undertakings are complied with, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. As directed by this Court the service of a counsel was made available to the petitioner by the Legal Services Authority. 6. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We take note of and record the undertaking by the first respondent and the undertaking of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. We are satisfied that no specific WPC 438/2011 4 directions are necessary. This writ petition is in these circumstances allowed in part to the above extent. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 438/2011 5