IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9508 of 2010(K)
1. BABU GEORGE, S/O.VARGHESE,S/O.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. S.I.OF POLICE, SANTHANPARA POLICE
... Respondent
2. C.I.OF POLICE, DEVIKULAM CIRCLE,
3. T.J.SHINE, THAKIDIKAL HOUSE,
4. K.V.SHAJI, KOONANIKAL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
For Respondent :SRI.SAJI MATHEW
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :28/05/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 9508 of 2010 K
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court praying for a
direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and
meaningful protection to the life of the petitioner and his family
members.
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows.
Petitioner was a local committee member of C.P.I(M). Recently,
due to ideological differences and because he stood against
certain illegal actions of the party, the petitioner was constrained
to resign from the party and joined the Indian National
Congress. The respondents became hostile to the petitioner and
he was threatened. His life is extremely in danger.
W.P.(C).No. 9508 of 2010
2
3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 3 and 4.
According to them, there is a complaint against the petitioner about
creating forged documents relating to the property of one Rathi. An
Enquiry Commission was appointed. Ext.R4(a) is the report of the
Enquiry commission. The petitioner was given notice seeking his
explanation. He failed to give any reply. He was issued with another
notice, to which also he did not give any explanation. The petitioner
was dismissed from the party for his illegal activities.
4. It is stated that an F.I.R. has been registered against some
persons, including the petitioner. It is also stated that there is no truth
in the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition. There are
references to certain criminal cases, in which the petitioner was
involved.
5. In the light of the apprehension of the petitioner, we make
the interim order absolute. However, we make it clear that we are not
pronouncing on the contentions raised by the parties as against each
other. We also make it clear that in any proceedings before any Forum
W.P.(C).No. 9508 of 2010
3
it will not be open to the petitioner to produce the order of this Court as
a shield for defending his case.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm