High Court Kerala High Court

K.V.Subramanian vs Suchind on 30 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.V.Subramanian vs Suchind on 30 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14756 of 2010(T)


1. K.V.SUBRAMANIAN, PRESIDENT,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.A.SUSEELA, PRINCIPAL,

                        Vs



1. SUCHIND, SON OF PULLATT NARAYANAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SURESH, SON OF KOCHUVEETTIL

3. VIKAS, SON OF CHAKKALAKKAL VELUKUTTY,

4. FAISAL, SON OF EDASSERY ABDUL JABBAR,

5. ANVAR, SON OF PUTHIYAVEETTIL MUHAMMED,

6. RAGHAVAN, SON OF CHANGARAMKULATH

7. MEERA SURESH BABU, WIFE OF VALIPARAMBIL

8. SUDHEER, SON OF KOLLARA GOPALAN,

9. SUNIL KUMAR, SON OF THEKKINEDATH

10. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

11. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

12. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

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

 Dated :30/06/2010

 O R D E R
                           K. M. JOSEPH &
                  M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  W.P.(C).No. 14756 of 2010 T
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

Joseph, J.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking police protection.

We have already passed interim orders, the last of which is

dated 11.6.2010.

2. Today learned counsel for the petitioners points out

that at present there is no obstruction. He further submits

that in case there is any obstruction, this court may direct that

protection will be granted to the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the party respondents submits

that there are issues relating to issuance of T.C. and a Writ

Petition is also pending.

4. We take note of paragraph 3 of the order

dt.11.6.2010. We record the submission of the parties that as

W.P.(C).No. 14756 of 2010

2

of now there is no obstruction. At the same time, we direct that in

case there is any obstruction from respondents 1 to 9 for the

smooth functioning of the school, effective protection shall be

given by respondents 10 to 12. We make it clear that this order

will not stand in the way of respondents 1 to 9 meeting the school

authorities during visiting time for any of their grievances.

(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm