IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29439 of 2009(Y)
1. JAMALUDHEEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KOLLAM.
... Respondent
2. S.I.OF POLICE,
3. HAMEED,
4. AJMEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.BIMAL K.NATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :25/02/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.29439 of 2009-Y
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:–
“i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
Ist and 2nd respondents to provide adequate police
protection to the life of the petitioner and his
family members from the threat of the 3rd and 4th
respondents.
ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction directing the Ist and 2nd
respondents to take appropriate steps in Exhibit P1
and P2 complaints.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as
follows:– The 3rd respondent requested the petitioner to help
him to obtain a visa for better employment abroad. Petitioner
introduced one Rahim residing in Ernakulam who is known to
be an agent for providing visa to whom the petitioner had a
WPC 29439/2009 -2-
little acquaintance. It is stated that at the time of introducing
Rahim petitioner had told to the 3rd respondent to deal directly
and that the petitioner will not take any responsibility. It is
stated that subsequently the 3rd respondent told the petitioner
that they had given a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to Rahim for
providing visa for certain job and that a visa was given to him
for a job which was contrary to the agreement between them.
It is heard thereafter that Rahim cheated respondents 3 and
4 and had not given the visa as per the agreement. In short,
the allegation is that there is a threat to the life of the
petitioner from respondents 3 and 4.
3. Though served, there is no appearance for
respondents 3 and 4. We heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Government Pleader.
The writ petition is disposed of directing
respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to
the life of the petitioner and his family members as and when
required by the petitioner from respondents 3 and 4. We,
however, make it clear that this will not stand in the way of
any investigation being done in accordance with law in respect
WPC 29439/2009 -3-
of any offence committed by any of the parties.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS