IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23849 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR,S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI,KAILAS KARAKKONAM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-695 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VELLARADA POLICE STATION,PIN-695 018. 3. S.VIJAYAKUMAR,DRIVER,RAJEEV GANDHI CENTRE FOR BIO-TECHNOLOGY,JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 012. 4. USHAKUMARI,INDU NIVAS,KARODE, VILAPPILSALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 008. ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR FOR R3-4 SRI.G.SURARSHAN FOR R3-4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.23849 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In this writ petition seeking directions for police protection against respondents 3 and 4, service of notice has not been effected so far against the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent has been served and he has not come forward to resist the prayers in this writ petition. 2. Sri.G.Sudheer learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a monetary dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. But, instead of pursuing the remedies through process of the civil court, respondents 3 and 4 are taking law into their hands. there is subsisting threat to the petitioner's life from respondents 3 and 4, so submitted the learned counsel. 3. The learned Government Pleader Sri.T.K.Vipin Das submitted that enquiry into Ext.P1 reveals that the dispute WPC NO.23849/2010 .2. between the petitioner and the party respondents is a monetary dispute. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that it is the duty of the 2nd respondent to ensure that the dispute between the petitioner and party respondents do not give raise to any law and order problem and that no danger is caused to the life of the petitioner on account of the above dispute. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to take prompt action if and when any petition is received from the petitioner complaining of threat or any contumacious act from the part of respondents 3 and 4 to ensure that the petitioner's life is safe. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk