IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13789 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SAM THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS,AGED 30, KIZHAKUMTHALA (H),KARIKUNNU,U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA,MANAGER E-LIP ACADEMY,(ERNAKULAM) BRANCH, AT RAVIPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM, 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THEVARA POLICE STATION, 3. DALIYA P.E.,D/O.EVDEUSE, PANDIYALAKKAL (H),VADACKAL P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. 4. EVDEUSE,PANDIYALAKKAL (H), VADACKAL P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. 5. SIBY ANTONY,D/O.ANTONY, CHAKKIATH HOUSE,PADMAPURAM P.O.,PANTHAKAL. 6. ANTONY,S/O NOT KNOWN, CHAKKIATH HOUSE, PADMAPURAM P.O., PANTHAKAL. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNEMNT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.13789 OF 2010: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPNDENT AND THE AGENT DATED 7.8.09. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND THE AGENT DATED 14.9.07. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 28.3.10. EXT.P4.TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 9.4.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R6A.COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS DATED NIL. EXT.R6B. COPY OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE AMOUNT CONVERTED INTO AUSTRALIAN DOLLAR THROUGH THOMAS COOK INDIA LTD.DATED 14.7.2007. EXT.R6C. COPY OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE AMOUNT CONVERTED INTO AUSTRALIAN DOLLAR THROUGH THOMAS COOK INDIA LTD. DATED 17.7.2007. EXT.R6D. COPY OF THE PARTICULARS OF BANK DEBIT OF DD NO.339486 IN THE ACCOUNT OF T AND TC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD DATED 5.1.2010. EXT.R6E. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.1.2010. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.13789 of 2010-W ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “1. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order, direction commanding respondent Nos.1 and 2 to give sufficient police protection to the life of the petitioner as well as to the Institution. 2. to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner and his institution to run the institution without any threat, intimidation or physical obstruction being caused by respondents 3 to 6 or anybody acting under them. 3. to declare that respondents 3 to 6 have no manner of right or authority to cause obstruction to the petitioner to conduct the institution. A declaration is also sought. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the Branch Manager of an institution owned by M/s.Treasia Mathew. She is a non-resident and is now in Australia. It is submitted that the institution of the WPC No.13789/2010 -2- petitioner is engaged in the business of service assistance for training at overseas which includes students visa, training, admission in professional institution, professional registration IELTS OET. Respondents 3 and 5 got registered in the petitioner institution for overseas studies and student VISA. There is reference to Exts.P1 and P2 agreements. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents could not arrange bank loan to meet their expenses for studies in Australia and respondents did not join within time. There is further reference to threat and interference by the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents. They demanded back the process fee. It is alleged that they also threatened the petitioner that they will do away the petitioner unless he pays compensation. Petitioner filed Exts.P3 and P4 complaints. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 5 and 6. 3. We are not going into the allegations made by the petitioner as against the party respondents or the allegations in the counter affidavit. Whatever be the complaints that the party respondents have against the petitioner they cannot physically obstruct or interfere with the working of the petitioner's institution. In such circumstances, WPC No.13789/2010 -3- the writ petition is disposed of as follows: There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to give protection to the life of the petitioner for running his institution without any intimidation or physical obstruction by respondents 3 to 6. However, we make it clear that this judgment shall not stand in the way of the police authorities registering a crime, investigating any complaint they may have received or will receive from the party respondents or from any other person against the petitioner and brining it to a logical conclusion. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS