IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9081 of 2010(I)
1. A.ANITHA BHAI, LIJI NIVAS,
... Petitioner
2. G.SILVESTER, KANTHALA KIZHAKKUMKARA
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. AJITH ANTONY, AGED 20,
5. SUNILRAJ KESAR, AGED 23,
6. VIJAYAKUMAR RAJAPPAN, AGED 45,
7. KESARI MANAS, AGED 55,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
For Respondent :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :20/05/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.9081 of 2010-I
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 20th day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking
the following relief:–
“i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing
respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective
police protection to the life and properties of
petitioners from being subjected to commission of
cognizable offences by respondents 4 to 7 and their
henchmen.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as
follows: They are residing in old tiled buildings on either side
of a pathway. Ext.P1 is the photograph. Respondents 4 to 7
wanted to convert the pathway to a motorable road by
demolishing the outer walls of residential house. Petitioners
filed suit before the Munsiff Court and obtained injunction
against respondents 4 to 7 from demolishing the outer walls
of residential houses and compound walls. Ext.P2 is the order
of injunction. It is stated that the petitioners are threatened
and intimidated with fear of death to coerce them to withdraw
WPC 9081/2010 -2-
the suit. In other words, their case is that there is utter
disregard of Ext.P2 order. Petitioners filed Ext.P3 complaint
before the Sub Inspector of Police.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7.
Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 would point out that
the 7th respondent was not a party in the suit. Learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 7th respondent
was included as a person interested in widening the pathway.
The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 would submit that
respondents 4 to 7 have no intention to widen the pathway
by demolishing the building. We record the same and dispose
of the writ petition.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS