IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5146 of 2008(K)
1. FIROSE KUMAR M.T.,
... Petitioner
2. PRATHEEKSHA FIROSE,
Vs
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR.
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA.
4. DEVADASAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :22/02/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.5146 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
First petitioner is the authorised dealer and stockist of M/s.Surya
Petroleum Private Limited under the name and style ‘Aswathy Gas Agency’.
Second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. It appears that they have
two children. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioners allege that the 4th respondent is harassing them by unnecessarily
calling them to the police station and unnecessarily interfering with their
business activity. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the
following directions:
“i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 4th respondent
to forbear from interfering with the business of the petitioner in
supplying and distributing gas cylinders;
ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent 4
not to launch any criminal prosecution against the 1st petitioner
for doing the supply of gas cylinders and not to harass the
petitioners and their workers and their family by inflicting
unforeseen offences;
iii. Issue such other writ, direction or order as this
Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
this case; and
iv. Award costs of the petitioners in these proceedings”
W.P.(C) No.5146 of 2008
2
(2) The Circle Inspector of Police, Mala, who is arrayed as the third
respondent, has filed a detailed counter affidavit and in that has brought to our
notice that certain criminal cases are pending against the first petitioner and it is
only for the purpose of investigation that the petitioner was called to the police
station.
(3) In view of the statement made by the third respondent in the counter
affidavit, in our opinion, at this stage, it would suffice if we only direct
respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner unnecessarily. But, it does not
mean that the police should not investigate into the crimes registered against
the petitioners in accordance with law.
(4) With this observation the writ petition is disposed of.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE
vns