High Court Kerala High Court

Baisil Attepetty @ Basil A.G vs The Circle Inspector Of Police on 25 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Baisil Attepetty @ Basil A.G vs The Circle Inspector Of Police on 25 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2331 of 2010(N)


1. BAISIL ATTEPETTY @ BASIL A.G,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KALADY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF

3. SRI.C.V.ASOKAN,HIGHER GRADE SECTION

4. SRI.T.CHANDRA BABU,HIGHER GRADE SECTION

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BAISIL ATTIPETTY (PARTY IN PERSON)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :25/01/2010

 O R D E R
                         R. BASANT &
                    M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.
           -------------------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) No. 2331 of 2009-N
           -------------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010

                           JUDGMENT

Basant,J.

The short prayer of the petitioner is that he may be

permitted to be present before the University on 27/1/10 in

obedience to the directions of the learned single Judge in

Ext.P1 interim order dated 20/1/10. The operative part of

Ext.P1 order reads like this:

“The petitioner shall be present

before the University on 27/1/2010. On

that day, the University shall get all

required papers signed by the petitioner

and relieve him on that day itself.”

2. The petitioner apprehends that respondents 3 and 4

might obstruct him from proceeding to the University in

W.P.(C) No. 2331 of 2009 -: 2 :-

pursuance of the directions issued in Ext.P1. This would

virtually deprive him of the advantage of Ext.P1 order.

According to him, he has already submitted Ext.P2

representation to the 1st respondent. The petitioner apprehends

that respondents 3 and 4, being very powerful persons, may

frustrate his option to proceed to the University on 27/1/10 to

claim the advantage of Ext.P1 order.

3. Notice has been given. The learned Government

Pleader appears for the 1st respondent. The Standing Counsel

for the University appears for the 2nd respondent. The Standing

Counsel submits that the University has no objection against the

petitioner coming to the University in compliance with Ext.P1

order and claiming the benefits of the said order. The learned

Standing Counsel for the University, however, submits that the

petitioner will have to comply with the directions in Ext.P1 fully

i.e., he will have to execute a bond and sign all required papers.

4. Respondents 3 and 4 have not been served. There is

hardly time to wait for issue and return of notice to respondents

3 and 4. The directions in Ext.P1 have to be complied with and

the petitioner has got to be given opportunity to appear before

the University as directed in Ext.P1 order. In these

circumstances, we deem it only proper to direct the 1st

W.P.(C) No. 2331 of 2009 -: 3 :-

respondent to ensure that the petitioner is given opportunity and

the required assistance to appear before the University in

compliance of Ext.P1 order. Necessary assistance/protection

shall be granted to the petitioner by the 1st respondent.

5. This writ petition is thus allowed in part. We think that

in this petition for police protection it is unnecessary to consider

the various other contentions raised and reliefs claimed.

6. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned

Government Pleader who shall immediately communicate the

same to the 1st respondent. Hand over another copy to the

learned counsel for the petitioner also.

Sd/-

R. BASANT
(Judge)

Sd/-

M.C. HARI RANI
(Judge)

Nan/

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge