IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 33064 of 2009(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, KURIVITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, PONNAMKAYAM P.O., THIRUVAMPADY,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. RADHA, W/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KURIVITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, PONNAMKAYAM P.O., THIRUVAMPADY,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. GOPIKA, D/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 23 YEARS, KURIVITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, PONNAMKAYAM P.O., THIRUVAMPADY,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE RURAL, VADAKARA. 2. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVAMPADY. 3. GOPALAN, S/O.PAPPAN, AGED 60 YEARS, MANATHANATHU HOUSE, PONNAMKAYAM P.O., THIRUVAMPADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. SHANTHA, W/O GOPALAN, AGED 55 YEARS, MANATHANATHU HOUSE, PONNAMKAYAM P.O., THIRUVAMPADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. W.P.(C). NO.33064/2009-C: 5. UMA, D/O GOPALAN, AGED 32 YEARS, MANATHANATHU HOUSE, PONNAMKAYAM P.O., THIRUVAMPADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. LIBIN, S/O BABY, AGED 25 YEARS, KANNUMPLACKAL HOUSE, PONNAMKAYAM P.O.,THIRUVAMPADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 7. BENNY @ THARAPPEL, S/O.THOMAS, THARAYIL HOUSE, PONNAMKAYAM P.O., THIRUVAMPADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS, R3 TO R7 BY ADVS. SRI.A.V.M.SALAHUDIN, SRI.A.VISWANATHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.33064/2009-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DTD. 19/08/2009 BY THE P.2. BEFORE THE JFCM COURT II, THAMARASSERY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DTD. 03/09/09 BY THE P.3. BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, THAMARASSERY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 06/11/2009 FOR POLICE PROTECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DTD. 06/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE THIRUVAMPADY POLICE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 33064 OF 2009 C ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Petitioners, a couple and their daughter have come to this Court with this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for issue of directions to respondents 1 and 2 police officials to afford protection to them against the culpable, violent and contumacious conduct of respondents 3 to 5, their neighbours and respondents 6 and 7, henchmen/goondas engaged by respondents 3 to 5. According to the petitioners respondents 3 to 5 are their neighbours. There are certain disputes between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 3 to 5 on the other. Two private complaints were filed by petitioners 2 and 3. A civil litigation was also initiated. On account of this strain in their relationship, petitioners apprehended that respondents 3 to 5 may indulge in violent and contumacious conduct against them with the help of respondents 6 and 7. In these circumstances they have come to Court with this petition claiming police protection. WPC 33064/2009 2 2. It is submitted at the Bar that the second respondent has expired during the pendency of the petition. An interim order was passed on 18-11-2009 when this petition came up for admission. That interim direction was to the police “to ensure that law and order is maintained.” Admittedly there has been no untoward incidents. After admission of the case on 18-11-2009 and the passing of interim orders the petition had not come up for hearing at all and it is only now that the Registry has listed the same for hearing. Learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7 submits that all the allegations raised against respondents 3 to 7 are false and untenable. Respondents 3 to 7 have no intention of indulging in any culpable and contumacious conduct against the petitioners. They undertake that they shall not involve themselves in any such conduct. There is absolutely no necessity to issue any specific directions under Art.226. Allegations have been made merely for the purpose of intimidating respondents 3 to 7 and to vex and harass them. The sequence of events reveal that there is no real or possible threat against the life and person of the petitioners. 3. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that in the perception of WPC 33064/2009 3 respondents 1 and 2 also there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioners. It is true that there are disputes and disagreements between the neighbours. Apprehension of threat to the life and person is not justified at all. If there be any such threat needless to say police shall take necessary action to abate such threat submits the learned Govt. Pleader. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. In the circumstances of the case we are not persuaded to issue any specific directions. We take note of the submissions of respondents 3 to 7. We take note of the submissions of the learned Govt. Pleader. We take note of the sequence of events and the interim order passed on 18-11-2009. We are satisfied that no specific direction deserves to be issued under Art.226 of the Constitution. 5. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 33064/2009 4 WPC 33064/2009 5