High Court Kerala High Court

J.George Nadar vs Sheeja on 19 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
J.George Nadar vs Sheeja on 19 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25510 of 2010(K)


1. J.GEORGE NADAR,AGED 90 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. A.MERCY,AGED 86 YEARS,
3. SMRITHY SELVARAJ,MINOR,

                        Vs



1. SHEEJA,AGED 33 YEARS,D/O.LILLY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. VIPIN,AGED 33 YEARS,S/O.NATARAJAN,

3. STANLY,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.ZAKKARIAH,

4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.ROBINSON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :19/08/2010

 O R D E R
          K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
        ------------------------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) No.25510 of 2010-K
           ----------------------------------------------
           Dated, this the 19th day of August, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

K.M.Joseph, J.

There are four prayers in the writ petition. This

matter comes up before us on the basis of an order passed by

the learned Single Judge wherein after going through the

prayers the learned Single Judge felt that the prayers 1 to 3

are not maintainable as they are sought against private

individuals. Noting that the 4th prayer for police protection is

to be considered by the Division Bench as per roster the

matter came up before us.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners. Apparently, the averments which may have

been made in justification of the prayer for police protection

are contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition.

Allegations are made against respondents 1 to 3. Respondent

No.1 is the wife of the deceased son of petitioners 1 and 2.

The 3rd respondent is the father of the Ist respondent.

3. After going through the averments we do not

WPC No.25510/2010 -2-

think that the petitioners have made out a case for

considering the prayer No.4 either. We decline jurisdiction

and relegate the petitioners to pursue the remedies open to

them before the competent Civil Court or any other forum.

Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach

the competent Civil Court or any other forum, this writ petition

is disposed of.

(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.

MS