IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 29439 of 2009(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JAMALUDHEEN, AGED 49 YEARS,S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, SAJAS COTTAGE,KUTTIKKADA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR SRI.SREEVALSAN.V RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. S.I.OF POLICE, ERAVIPURAM,KOLLAM. 3. HAMEED, AGED 49 YEARS,S/O.MUHAMMED ILLIYAS, CHARUVILA VEEDU,THRIKKOVILVATTOM, MUGATHALA P.O.,KOLLAM. 4. AJMEER, AGED 18 YEARS,S/O.HAMEED,CHARUVILA VEEDU, THRIKKOVILVATTOM,MUGATHALA P.O.,KOLLAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29349/2009-Y APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.10.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.10.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.29439 of 2009-Y ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:-- “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Ist and 2nd respondents to provide adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members from the threat of the 3rd and 4th respondents. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Ist and 2nd respondents to take appropriate steps in Exhibit P1 and P2 complaints.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:-- The 3rd respondent requested the petitioner to help him to obtain a visa for better employment abroad. Petitioner introduced one Rahim residing in Ernakulam who is known to be an agent for providing visa to whom the petitioner had a WPC 29439/2009 -2- little acquaintance. It is stated that at the time of introducing Rahim petitioner had told to the 3rd respondent to deal directly and that the petitioner will not take any responsibility. It is stated that subsequently the 3rd respondent told the petitioner that they had given a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to Rahim for providing visa for certain job and that a visa was given to him for a job which was contrary to the agreement between them. It is heard thereafter that Rahim cheated respondents 3 and 4 and had not given the visa as per the agreement. In short, the allegation is that there is a threat to the life of the petitioner from respondents 3 and 4. 3. Though served, there is no appearance for respondents 3 and 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. The writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members as and when required by the petitioner from respondents 3 and 4. We, however, make it clear that this will not stand in the way of any investigation being done in accordance with law in respect WPC 29439/2009 -3- of any offence committed by any of the parties. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS