IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6479 of 2010(H)
1. A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ S/O.ABDUL KHADER,
... Petitioner
2. R. AJAYAKUMAR, S/O. RJAPPAN,
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM
5. MUHAMMED SHAFI, KUTTIVILA THEKKETHIL
6. SHIBER MUHAMMED, SHIHAD MANZIL,
7. JUBAIR, S/O. ABOOBAKER KUNJU,
8. ABDUL RINSHAD KHAN, S/O.ABDUL KALAM,
9. MUKHATHALA GOPINATHAN,
10. SANALKUMAR, S/O. SAHADEVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :04/03/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6479 of 2010-H
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 4th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
The 7th respondent is not served. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that relief against the 7th
respondent is not pressed and that the 7th respondent may be
deleted from the party array. Accordingly, the 7th respondent
is deleted from the party array.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:–
“i. to issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing
respondents 1 to 4 to grant proper and adequate
police protection to the petitioners, their family
members and their employees to run the
Petroleum Retail Outlet at Kottiyam beside NH-47
and the Colour Labs at Kottiyam and Kollam
without any let or hindrance from respondents 5
go 10and their men by removing them 200
meters away.
ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing Ist
respondent to consider Ext.P4 as expeditiously as
WPC No.6479/2010 -2-
possible.”
3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as
follows:–The Ist petitioner is one of the Directors of
Al-Manama Group of Companies doing business in marketing
consumer goods at various places in India and abroad. He is
running a petroleum retail outlet at Kottiyam and another
establishment having branches at Chinnakkada, Kollam and
Kottiyam. The 2nd petitioner is the Manager of the retail outlet
at Kottiyam. The 5th respondent was working as Purchase
Manager of the Al-Manama Group of Companies and was
located in Dubai. Allegations are made against him. In short,
the case of the petitioners is that respondents 5 to 10 had
made allegations against the owners of the Al-Manama Group
of Companies and that they held a press conference and
published libel defaming the petitioners and other Directors of
the Al-Manama Group of Companies. More importantly, the
case of the petitioners is that there is threat from respondents
and that their life and properties are in danger.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents 5, 6 and 8 to 10 would submit that respondents
WPC No.6479/2010 -3-
5, 6 and 8 to 10 have no intention to obstruct the petitioners.
The learned counsel submits that there are some complaints
against the petitioners.
5. Learned Government Pleader also submits that
crimes have been registered on the basis of the complaints
filed by the petitioners and respondents.
6. While there can be no objection in the
investigation being done in accordance with law, we direct that
in case any threat by respondents 5, 6 and 8 to 10 against the
petitioners or their business establishment mentioned,
protection will be provided by respondents 2 to 4 for the
petitioners.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS