IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16568 of 2010(U)
1. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SRI.RAVEENDRAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :19/07/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 16568 of 2010 U
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to
the first respondent to afford sufficient and meaningful
protection to the life and property of the petitioner, specifically to
run the Bunk shop covered by Ext.P1.
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows.
Petitioner was the Branch Secretary of C.P.I.(M). Fed up with
the new trends in the party, he resigned from the party and is
running a Milma Booth at Kaithamukku in Thiruvananthapuram.
Alleging that the petitioner refused to co-operate with the Harthal
announced on 27.4.2010, a group of people, on 10.5.2010
attacked and destroyed the shop of the petitioner. The police is
not taking any action, it is submitted.
W.P.(C).No. 16568 of 2010
2
3. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent,
wherein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows. The petitioner was
dismissed from the party for misusing his position as the Branch
Secretary. While he was in charge as Branch Secretary, he used to
collect money unauthorisedly from the shops and local vendors in the
name of the party. Knowing this, the party officials warned him, but
he continued his illegal activities, which resulted in lowering the
reputation of the party. Infuriated by the dismissal of the petitioner,
he was trying to do troubles to the party. Now he joined in the Indian
National Congress. He is running the Milma booth without any licence
from the Corporation and he erected the front of the shop encroaching
the public road. Eventhough he is authorised to sell only milma
products, he is selling cigarettes and banned pan masala. The police
have registered a case against the supporters of C.P.I.(M) on the basis
of the complaint of the petitioner.
4. It may be true that the petitioner is running the milma booth
by encroaching the public road or that he is selling products, including
cigarettes and pan masala. But at the same time, the second
W.P.(C).No. 16568 of 2010
3
respondent or his men cannot cause any threat to the life of the
petitioner.
5. In such circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition
directing the first respondent to provide protection to the life of the
petitioner as against the second respondent and his men. However,
we make it clear that this judgment should not be understood as
meaning that we have granted protection to the petitioner to run the
milma booth, if it is put up on the public road in an illegal manner.
We also make it clear that this judgment should not be understood as
meaning that action in accordance with law cannot be taken against
the petitioner, if facts and law so warrant.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm