IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 36549 of 2009(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SRI.JALEEL P.P. PUTHIYAVEETTIIL HOUSE, KARA POST, KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE S.I.OF POLICE MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE S.I.OF POLICE, KODUNGALLOOR POLICE STATION KODUNGALLOOR P.O.,TRICHUR DISTRICT. 3. MURALEEKRISHNAN P.K., POOVATHUMKADAVIL HOUSE, KUZHIKKATTUSSERY PO,MUKUNDAPURAM. 4. MR.SHIBU, CHATHANGATTIL HOUSE, KUZHIKKATTUSSERY PO,MUKUNDAPURAM. *ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT. *IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 17.12.2009. ADDL. R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISMA R3 & R4 BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, SMT.SMITHA GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.36549/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 5.12.2009. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 5.12.2009 BEFORE THE VIGILANCE JUDGE, THRISSUR. P3:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT NEWS ITEM APPEARED ON THE FRON TSS PAGE OF MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 6.12.2009. P4:_ COPY OF THE F.I.R. MALA POLICE STATION DTD. 7.5.2006. P5:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 8.12.2009. P6:- COPY OF THE PETITIN 13.12.09 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 13.12.2009 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.36549 of 2009-K ***************************** Dated this the 17th day of 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 Nos.1 and 2 to afford protection to the petitioner against illegal, culpable and violent acts which he apprehends from respondents 3 and 4. According to the petitioner, he had occasion to raise complaints of corruption against the 3rd respondent. According to him, requisite action has been taken on such complaint and the 3rd respondent is now under suspension. The petitioner apprehends that the 3rd respondent and the 4th respondent, an associate, might indulge in objectionable and violent acts against the petitioner. Since the 3rd respondent has been suspended from service, such threat is real now. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that on 17.12.2009 the following interim order has been passed by the bench which admitted the case. W.P(C) No.36549 of 2009-K 2 “There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate, effective and meaningful police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and members of his family.” That interim order has remained in force from 17.12.2009. Thereafter, there were only two posting of the case. Subsequent to 06.01.2010, there has been no posting. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied if the interim order dated 17.12.2009 is made absolute and this proceedings closed and discontinued. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that those respondents have absolutely no objection against continuance of the interim order, but they would like to make it clear that the allegations raised against them are absolutely incorrect and false. According to respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner is only a mercenary who has filed this petition at the instance of another person, who is ill disposed to the 3rd respondent. All the allegations are false. Those allegations may not be accepted. Interim order can continue and respondents 3 and 4, who have no intention at all to indulge in any W.P(C) No.36549 of 2009-K 3 contumacious acts against the petitioner, have no objection against such continuance, submits the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 4. We are satisfied that this petition can now be closed making it clear that we are not accepting any specific allegations made by either side. 5. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) The interim order dated 17.12.2009 extracted above is made absolute; c) We make it clear that we have not accepted the factual allegations made by either side. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/