WPC No. 29014 of 2011 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In the above circumstances, the interim order dated 31.10.2011 is made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of, making it clear that, we have not expressed anything with regard to the merits, W.P(C) No. 29014 of 2011 :4: particularly with regard to the…
Judgment
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. GIRIJA GOPALAN. R4 SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR R5 SRI.R.V.SUJIT KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(c) 29014 OF 2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : APPENDIX EXT. P1 EXT. P2 EXT. P3 EXT. P4 EXT. P5 EXT. P6 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1361/2011 OF SRO, TRIPUNITHURA DATED 04.04.2011 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 3020 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO. 1490/2000 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT ERNAKULAM DATED 27.05.2011 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAMA VILLAGE : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 03.10.2011 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 03.10.2011 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE AYYANKALIPADA DATED 14.10.2011 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P(C) No. 29014 Of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of January, 2012 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon .J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : (i) Issue writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 or the concerned among them to render, adequate and meaningful police protection to the petitioner in the matter of the petitioner's life as well as the life of the family members of the petitioner against acts of threats, violences, interferences, intrusions made by the 4th respondent, 5th respondent and the organization under them. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the respondents No.2 and 3 or the concerned among them to take up Exts. P4 and P5 and make arrangements and steps to preserve the life and liberty of the life of the petitioner and his family members from the illegal and high handed acts of the 4th respondent, 5th respondent and the members of the organization under t hem. W.P(C) No. 29014 of 2011 :2: (iii) Allow the petitioner to recover the full costs incurred for the institution and conduct of this writ petition from the 4th and 5th respondents.
With regard to the said reliefs, it is to be noted that, it stands in respect of the life of the petitioner and when the matter came up for consideration before this Court earlier on 31.10.2011 an interim order was passed, particularly in the following terms, as borne by paragraphs 3 and 4, which are extracted below : “3. The learned counsel for the petitioner presses for an interim order. The interim order sought is only for protection of the life of the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner makes it clear that he is not seeking any relief for protection in respect of Ext. P1 property by way of interim order.
There shall be a direction that if there be any threat to the life or person of the petitioner or his family members, the petitioner can lodge a complaint to the 2nd and/or 3rd respondent and thereupon those police officials shall take necessary action in accordance with law. The action taken on such complaint, if any, shall be reported to this Court on
07.11.2011” W.P(C) No. 29014 of 2011 :3:
The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that there is absolutely no manner of objection whatsoever with regard to the granting of protection in respect of life and that the dispute is something else. Similar submission is made by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent as well.
4. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the police has rose to the occasion and has made appropriate arrangements to see that no threat to the law and order situation is resulted.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by virtue of the interim order, there is no longer any threat to the life of the petitioner.
In the above circumstances, the interim order dated 31.10.2011 is made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of, making it clear that, we have not expressed anything with regard to the merits, W.P(C) No. 29014 of 2011 :4: particularly with regard to the disputes, if any pending before the concerned Courts. Sd/- MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.