High Court Kerala High Court

S.Satheesh vs The State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
S.Satheesh vs The State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27894 of 2010(J)


1. S.SATHEESH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

5. SHYLAJA, D/O.VISWAMMA,

6. VIJAYAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :15/09/2010

 O R D E R

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

&

P.Q.Barkath Ali, JJ.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

W.P.(C).No.27894 of 2010-J

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010.

Judgment

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

The petitioner says that he is a tenant of the 5th

respondent. The learned counsel for the 5th

respondent states that the entrustment of the

portion of the building claimed by the petitioner

to him as a tenant is admitted, though the case

of respondents 5 and 6 is that the petitioner had

vacated the premises but was authorised to keep

his utensils in one or two rooms. We are clear in

our mind that this is not a dispute to be

resolved through the writ court. Evidently, this

was the reason that this Court had restricted the

interim order granted on 8.9.2010 to be one for

life of the petitioner and his workers as against

any threat from respondents 5 and 6. That does

WPC27894/10 -: 2 :-

not mean that the police can, under the cover of

that order, change the actual fact situation

which may be available. Therefore, we order that

the police will continue to ensure that the

petitioner and any of his workers are provided

adequate protection, however that, the police

will not insist on them being permitted to carry

on any particular activity in the building in

question. We clarify that either of the parties

will be at liberty to move the competent court

and obtain appropriate orders or even to get

further relief in the matter in which Ext.P4

order has been issued. We leave open all other

questions. The writ petition ordered accordingly.

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.

P.Q.Barkath Ali,
Judge.

Sha/1609