IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27316 of 2011(L) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. SUNITHA MOL U., PROPRITRIX, M/S VRINDAVANAM INDANE SERVICES, KADACKAL, KOLLAM - 691536. 2. R.S. BIJU, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER, VRINDAVANAM INDANE SERVICES, SREEMOOLAM HOUSE, ALTHARAMOODU KADACKAL, KOLLAM. 3. A.K.ANILKUMAR, MANAGER, VRINDAVANAM INDANE SERVICES, KADACKAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADACKAL, KOLLAM - 691536. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA RURAL, KOTTARAKKARA - 691506. 3. CHITRASENAN, S/O NOT KNOWN, THANAL, ANAPPARA, KADACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691536. ADV. SRI.C.PRATHAPACHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R3 SRI.P.KRISHNA KUMAR (ALAPPUZHA) FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27316 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 02/01/02. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 01/11/01 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/09/11. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 24/09/11 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXTS EXT.R3(A):- TRUE COPY OF THEPRINTED LETTER DATED 22/03/11. EXT.R3(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOLLAM DATED 29/06/11. EXT.R3(C):- TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PART OF PAGE NO.2 OF MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 30/04/11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.27316 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The 1st petitioner is the Propritrix of a Gas Agency by name M/s Vrindavanam Indane Services operating from Kadackal in Kollam District. The second petitioner is the Public Relations Officer of the above Gas Agency and the 3rd respondent is the Manager who conducts the above Gas Agency on behalf of the first petitioner. The 3rd respondent Chitrasenan is the functionary of an organization by name Thanal which going by the counter affidavit filed by him has been founded with the objective of eradicating corruption for all spheres of life particularly from the area of supply of Gas for domestic purposes. The allegation of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent under the guise of promoting public interest is actually upholding his own private interest and is compelling the petitioner to give Gas connection to W. P. C. No.27316 of 2011 -2- unauthorised persons. It is also alleged that the 3rd respondent is demanding huge amounts by way of illegal gratification from the petitioners. These allegations have been very stiffly denied by the 3rd respondent. According to the 3rd respondent, various items of crucial facts have been suppressed by the petitioners and the petitioners have done so with oblique motives. 2. The prayer in the above Writ Petition is the following:- “Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ orders or directions to the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide necessary and adequate police protection to the life of the petitioners and to run their business of cooking gas distribution as per Exts.P1 and P2.” 3. Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran, the learned Government Pleader on the basis of the written instructions imparted to him by the first respondent Inspector of Police, Kadakkal submitted that the complaint submitted by the petitioner was enquired into. The enquiry revealed that there was “some sorts of quarrel” between the W. P. C. No.27316 of 2011 -3- complainants, the petitioners and the 3rd respondent in connection with the issue of Gas Connection. But at present there is no law and order situation or any threat to the life of the petitioners including the first petitioner Propritrix of the Gas Agency. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the police will be prepared to take prompt action in case it is revealed that any threat subsists in respect of the life of the petitioners. 4. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Abraham John, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Prathap Chandran Pillai the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. We have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the 3rd respondent would make submissions on he basis of rival pleadings raised by the parties. The only question which we are called upon to decide in the present jurisdiction is whether there is any warrant for issuance of the protection directions sought for in this Writ Petition? Whether we should issue directions for protection for the life of the W. P. C. No.27316 of 2011 -4- petitioners and also for the smooth conduct of the Gas Agency by the petitioners. In this context we notice the averments in the counter affidavit submitted by the 3rd respondent that they have not caused any threat to the life of the petitioners and have not interfered with the lawful conduct of the Gas Agency by the petitioners. According to them, what they are opposing to is only the corrupt practices indulged in by the petitioners. We accept the stand taken by the Sub Inspector of Police that at the moment there is no law and order situation warranting issuance of directions for protection for the petitioner's life. We direct the first respondent and the concerned Station House Officer to conduct prompt enquiries into complaints which the petitioners may file in future seeking police protection in the wake of threats to the life of the petitioners and their staff members. The 1st respondent and the Station House Officer concerned will take prompt action for protecting the life of the petitioners if the enquiry conducted into such complaints reveal that threats subsist to the life of the petitioner. W. P. C. No.27316 of 2011 -5- 5. Coming to the question of peaceful conduct of the Gas Agency we are of the view that the petitioners are entitled to have their Gas Agency Vrindavanam Indane Services conducted peacefully. If the 3rd respondent has a complaint that the petitioners are indulging in corrupt practices while conducting Gas Agency it is for them to move the Competent Authorities. Ext.R3(b) produced by the 3rd respondent is a communication from the District Supply Officer to the Taluk Supply Officer which reveals that the District Supply officer has directed the Taluk Supply Officer to have a constant surveillance over the conduct of the Gas Agency by the petitioners so that there will not be difficulties for the consumer public. If the competent Authorities are moved by the 3rd respondent they will look into the 3rd respondent's complaints and take appropriate action. 6. We dispose of the Writ Petition observing that nothing stated herein will stand in the way of the 3rd respondent conducting peaceful agitation in such a manner W. P. C. No.27316 of 2011 -6- as not to obstruct free and regular supply of cylinders to the consumers who are attached to Vrindavan Gas Agency. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-