IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 15962 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KOYA AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.YUSUF, RESIDING AT VIP COLONY VALIYAKULAM WARD, ALLISSERY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.RIYAS SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, (HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 5. SAJEEV AHUJA, SEVEN STAR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT.LTD., REHNA BUILDING, SOUTH OF COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 6. MOHAN AGED 47, MANAGER IN CHARGE, SEVEN STAR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, REHNA BUILDING, SOUTH OF COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT SIVAKAMI MANDIRAM, STADIUM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T. K VIPINDAS FOR R1-4 ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R5 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R5,6 SRI.ARUN THOMAS FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15962 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN MR.RAFEEK AND THE PETITIONER DT.20.10.07 EXT.P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DT. 9.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE POST MASTER, ALAPPUZHA EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF PLAINT IN OS.345/2009 EXT.P4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT. EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF INJUNCTION ORDER IN APPEAL. EXT,.P6 : PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE AMBALAPUZHA. EXT.P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF PETITIONER BEFORE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND HIS ORDER. EXT.P8: PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION ON 11.5.2010 SEEKING ASSISTANCE OF THE POLICE. EXT.P9: PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a): PHOTOCPY OF THE ORDER DT.15.7.2009 IN IA 1230/09 IN O.S. NO. 345 OF 2009 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA EXT.R5(b): PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS SUBMITTED OF SEVEN STAR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT.LTD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA // TRUE COPY // K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 15962 of 2010 U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing respondents 2 to 4 or the appropriate among them to render adequate and meaningful police protection to the petitioner's life and property. ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing respondents 2 to 4 or the appropriate among them to render adequate and meaningful police protection to the petitioner to conduct the cable TV network.” W.P.(C).No. 15962 of 2010 2 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is the Proprietor of a Cable TV network providing cable TV connections to the residents of a small part of Alappuzha city with 400 connections. The petitioner had purchased the said business from one Mohammed Rafeek. Respondents 5 and 6 are the Proprietor and Manager in charge of Seven Star Information Technology Pvt. Ltd. They, along with their henchmen, started to cause obstruction to the operation of the petitioner's cable TV net work. They have disrupted the connections by cutting the cables of the network and removing the amplifiers and other instruments. They even collected subscription of the petitioner's subscribers. The petitioner has filed a suit and obtained an interim injunction. Later the injunction was vacated. Reference is made to Ext.P5 order of the District Court. 3. A counter affidavit was filed by respondents 5 and 6, to W.P.(C).No. 15962 of 2010 3 which a reply affidavit was also filed. 4. We heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the interim injunction granted originally was vacated and he filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. Apparently there is dispute between the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 in regard to the right to collect subscription and as to who has to run the network in the particular area. That is a matter which can be decided by other competent forum. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that there is threat to the life of the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submits that they have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. 7. We record the said submission and close this Writ Petition relegating the parties to pursue their remedies before appropriate W.P.(C).No. 15962 of 2010 4 forum. In case the petitioner complains of commission of any cognizable offence by respondents 5 and 6, appropriate action shall be taken by respondents 3 and 4 in accordance with law. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm