IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8035 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUSAMMA EASO, W/O.LATE SAMUEL, PUSHPAVILASOM, AVANEESWARAM P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNAR. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNAR. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNICODE POLICE STATION. 6. RASMI ABRAHAM, THANGUMCHERIL VEETTIL, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 7. SUMESH, MADHAVA VILASAM VEETTIL, MANNAM MURI, MANNAR VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 8. BABU, THENGUMCHERIL, KARRIYARA, PATHANAPURAM. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA, R6 TO R8 BY ADVS. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G, SRI.G.P.SHINOD, SRI.MANU .V, SRI.K.SURESH BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.8035/2009-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SAVINGS BANK PASS BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE PETITIONER WITH KOTTAKKAL FINANCIERS. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SAVINGS BANK PASS BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE PETITIONER WITH KOTTAKKAL FINANCIERS. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 383/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNAR. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE R.5. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.1. ALONG WITH RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).27722/06 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.8035 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions to the police to afford police protection to her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent and her husband were carrying on the activities of a firm by name Kottakkal Financiers. The said firm had obtained amounts from various persons. The petitioner had deposited the amounts. The petitioner had prevailed upon others to deposit amounts in the said financial establishment. She had canvassed amounts and had persuaded others to make deposits. The sixth respondent's husband, facing financial difficulties committed suicide. The establishment is still to return amounts to many like the petitioner and others from whom she was canvassed business in the establishment. Respondents 7 and 8 are relatives of the sixth respondent. According to the wpc No.8035/2009 2 petitioner, the petitioner will be assaulted and vexed, if and when she goes to respondents 6 to 8 demanding return of money. Police protection is claimed to ensure that she is not so assaulted or vexed when she goes to respondents 6 to 8 demanding money. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a similar prayer was allowed by an earlier Division Bench of this Court vide Ext.P8 judgment. That judgment was rendered on 31st October 2006. Still amounts remain to be paid. The sixth respondent has now shifted her residence. It is hence that the petitioner has come to this Court again. 2. We must realistically note that the earlier application was filed as early in 2006. More than four years have elapsed. We do not find merit in the contention of the petitioner that protection must be afforded to her to enable her to go to the present residence of respondents 6 to 8 and make demands for money. The petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings and seek recovery of amounts, if any, due in accordance with law. We do not want to restrain her from proceeding to respondents 6 to 8 to demand money, but at any rate, we wpc No.8035/2009 3 are satisfied that extraordinary discretion and power available under Article 226 cannot and need not be invoked to persuade her and permit her to go and make such demands armed with any order of police protection. Without prejudice to any right of the petitioner to initate appropriate action in accordance with law to recover the amount from respondents 6 to 8, if legally due from them, this petition is dismissed. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/