IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 8928 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.C.IYPE, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, ST.BENEDICT ROAD, WEST END, ERNAKULAM -18. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FIROZ SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY. 4. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, POLICE CONTROL ROOM, KOCHI CITY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 8928 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner is a practising lawyer of this Court. He submits that he was the Special Public Prosecutor in several sensitive cases involving notorious criminals who are engaged in smuggling of narcotic drugs. So a police constable was appointed to give protection to his life. Later when the petitioner became the State Attorney, the said arrangement continued. Even now the petitioner is the Special Prosecutor in many sensitive cases and he is facing threat from the accused in those cases. So the protection granted to him continued even after he ceased to be the State Attorney. But suddenly the protection granted to him is terminated and the Constable is withdrawn without any reason or justification. So the petitioner filed Ext.P9 representation before the Director General of Police requesting to continue to provide him the protection of the police constable. Thereafter, this writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: i)issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to continue to provide sufficient police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his family wpc 8928/2008 -2- members. 2. A statement has been filed by the third respondent as directed by this Court. In the statement among other things, it is stated as follows: It is to be further submitted that the claim of the petitioner that there is threat to his life was not reported to the SHO. The police personnel provided to him was also an unarmed person. The situation has now totally changed and according to the threat assessment done by us, there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. The petitioner herein is residing very close to Central Police Station and we can rush to the spot in no time, if the need arises. In fact, service of the police personnel was allowed by the SHO for the time being and the petitioner was the State Attorney for long time and the service was continued without interruption. Now there is no situation warranting special protection to the petitioner. If at all there is any threat to the petitioner, he can very well approach the SHO and we will extend necessary protection to the petitioner, if it is found necessary. As per the report obtained there is no specific threat to the life of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the contentions stated in the statement of the third respondent. 4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 5. Going by the statement of the police, as per their perception at present, there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. The police also undertakes that if there is any threat, the petitioner can wpc 8928/2008 -3- immediately approach the Station House Officer and the said officer will immediately extend necessary protection. It is further stated that at this stage, a constable need not be posted for giving protection to the petitioner and there is no circumstance warranting such an action. We find no reason to discard the above submission. Providing protection to individuals is a pure executive function with which we cannot interfere and substitute our decision for that of the competent authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So recording the submission of the third respondent that as and when the petitioner moves showing that there is a threat to his life, the S.H.O., Central Police Station, Ernkaulam will extend necessary protection, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY