High Court Kerala High Court

Jerome Joseph vs S.I.Of Police on 28 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jerome Joseph vs S.I.Of Police on 28 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35643 of 2009(A)


1. JEROME JOSEPH, AGED 53 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. S.I.OF POLICE, KOIPURAM,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. GIGI GEORGE MAMMEN, S/O.MAMMAN CHACKO,

4. MAMMEN CHACKO, KOLATH KONDOOR BANK

5. BINO V.ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM MATHAI,

6. ALEXANDER @ JOSE, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,

7. K.RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI PILLAI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.HARIDAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :28/10/2010

 O R D E R
               K.M.JOSEPH & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
       ==============================

                 W.P.(C) NO. 35643 OF 2009
         ============================

            Dated this the 28th day of October 2010

                         JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:

i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other

appropriate writ, order or direction commanding

respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective

police protection to the petitioner and his family to

continue with the peaceful enjoyment and possession

of property of the petitioner having an extent of 5

cents of land in survey No. 780/1 A (Resurvey No.

233/2-1) in Vennikulam Muri, Puramattom Village,

Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta District without any

threat and obstruction from respondents 3 to 7 or their

henchmen.

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other

appropriate writ, order or direction commanding

respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective

police protection to the life of the petitioner and his

family free from threat or obstruction from

respondents 3 to 7 or anybody under them.

35643/2009 -2-

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate

writ, order or direction directing first respondent to

consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P4.

2. A perusal of the writ petition would show that two suits

are pending. One filed by the petitioner and other filed by

respondents 3 and 4.

3. We feel that this is not a fit case to direct the police to

give protection. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedy

before the competent civil court. Without prejudice to the right

of the petitioner to urge all contentions before the appropriate

forum, this writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

Sd/-

M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE
ks.

TRUE COPY

35643/2009 -3-