IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C).No.4348 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER:- -------------------- M/S.SOMATHEERAM AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORTS PVT. LTD., CHOWARA P.O., VIA. BALARAMAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BABY MATHEW, AGED 47, S/O.A.J.MATHEW, ARAMBAMKUDIYIL, CHARIVUVILAPURAYIDAM, CHOWARA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NADAR, VIJAYA BHAVAN, CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. BAIJU, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, OLD HARIJAN COLONY, CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C).NO.4348 OF 2008-P - 2 - 6. HARI, S/O.DIVAKARAN, PUDUVALVEEDU, MANALTHEERAM ROAD, CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. V.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.VASUDEVAN, KANJIRAMNINNAVEEDU, CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. BINU PRABHAKARAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, AYANIKUTTIVILAVEEDU, CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. KUNJUMON, S/O.REGHU, THANININNAVILAVEEDU, CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. RAJAN, S/O.LAKSHMANAN, KANJIRAMNINNAVILAVEEDU, CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R4 TO R10 BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- W.P.(C).NO.4348 OF 2008-P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.07. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ANOTHER COMPLAINT FILED BY ONE RAJESH BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED NIL. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE MANAGER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED NIL. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 DATED 18/1/08. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE DOCTORS WORKING WITH THE PETITIONER DATED 19.1.08. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE D.G.P. Dated 29.1.08. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.39/08 OF THE VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION DATED 28.1.08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- --------------------------------------- NIL. ( true copy ) H.L.Dattu, C.J. & K.M.Joseph, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4348 of 2008-P ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT K.M.Joseph,J. This is a petition for police protection. According to the petitioner, it is a private limited Company engaged in the conducting of a Resort. It is also stated that they are providing Ayurveda treatment and Yoga there. It is the case of the petitioner that they have road transport facility to its staff as also the tourists and other persons who come to the Resort. It is the further case of the petitioner that whenever the in-house transport facility is not available for the petitioner, the tourist taxies of the party respondents, who are plying taxies in front of the premises of the petitioner, were made available. But of late, according to the petitioner, the party respondents have started creating unnecessary problems and does not permit the plying of the vehicles of the petitioner and always insist that the vehicles belonging to them should be made use of for the foreigners alone and none of the other persons of the petitioner Company. (2) The party respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is the case of the party respondents that they were issued with taxi permits by the competent authority. They say that most of the customers of the petitioner are tourists and now the petitioner has acquired 10 private owned cars with the intention to operate as Taxi services. According to the respondents, the ten cars owned by the petitioner's resort are privately owned cars and, therefore, they cannot be operated as taxi service for their customers and staffs. (3) We heard Sri.G.Sreekumar (Chelur), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Ajith Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents besides Smt.K.Meera, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. W.P.(C).No.4348 of 2008 - 2 - (4) The learned Government Pleader would submit on instructions that the parties were called to the police station and though a demand was raised that the services of the party respondents and the petitioner's vehicles shall be used in the ratio of 1:1, the request was not acceded to and it was agreed by the party respondents that they will not create any law and order problems. (5) We are of the view that when a complaint is lodged by a party, it is the bounden duty of the police to look into, consider the same and proceed on it in accordance with law. (6) In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner files any complaint before respondents 1 and 2 with regard to any commission of any offence by the party respondents, the respondents 1 and 2 shall look into the complaint and act in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.M.Joseph vku/- Judge