IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8265 of 2011(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- LALU, S/O.VIKRAMAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHAN VEEDU, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 582. BY ADV. SRI.T.T.RAKESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKUTTOM-695 582. 2. SURAJ, S/O.SAIDU MUHAMMED, MANAKKATTUVILAKAM VEEDU, NEAR FCI, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582. 3. SURESH @ KARATE SURESH, S/O.SREENIVASAN, THEKKEVILLAKAM VEEDU, STATION KADAVU, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, AATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.V.S.THOSHIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 8265/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05/03/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.8265 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondent No.1 to afford protection to the petitioner against apprehended acts of violence from respondents 2 and 3. According to the petitioner, he has bid in auction the right to sell vegetables from a stall in Kazhakoottam market. Respondents 2 and 3, according to the petitioner, are goondas of the area. As the petitioner is not willing to co-operate with respondents 2 and 3, they are unleashing violence against the petitioner. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 have been served. But, only respondent No.2 has chosen to appear before Court. The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that there is absolutely no threat against the petitioner from respondent No.2. The learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 is running a vegetable stall in WPC No.8265/2011 2 Kazhakoottam market and as a matter of fact, it is he who is facing threat from the petitioner. Appropriate directions may be issued to ensure that the second respondent is not exposed to any threat to his life and person from the petitioner, submits the learned counsel for the second respondent. 3. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner has a questionable and shady past. He is included in the rowdy list. Action has already been initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) for the detention of the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner is not bonafide and he is likely to misuse any order of protection that may be granted in his favour. According to the learned Government Pleader as against respondents 2 and 3 also there are crimes registered. The learned Government Pleader submits that the first respondent shall ensure that appropriate necessary and prompt action is taken, if there is any threat against the life or person of the petitioner from respondents 1 and 3. Similarly, if there is any threat against the life or person of WPC No.8265/2011 3 respondents 2 and 3 from the petitioner, then also necessary action shall be taken by the police. No specific directions under Article 226 are now necessary in these circumstances, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We take note of the submissions of the second respondent. We note that the third respondent has not chosen to enter appearance. We take note of and record the submissions of the learned government Pleader. We are satisfied that no further specific directions are necessary in the matter now. We, particularly, record and accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the first respondent that necessary action shall be taken, if there be any threat against the petitioner from respondents 2 and 3 or vice versa. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE WPC No.8265/2011 4 css/