Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Kunhukuttan.T.K. vs State Of Kerala on 20 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19361 of 2010(U)


1. KUNHUKUTTAN.T.K., AGED 61
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD.

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. SHO, CHERPPULASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

5. JAYADEVAN, AGED 46, S/O. RAGHAVAN,

6. SHAJI, AGED 49, S/O. THANKAPPAN, PARAYIL

7. KUNJIRAMAN, AGED 52, S/O. AYYAPPAN,

8. SIDDIQE, AGED 46, APPATTAKUNNATH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.G.BASIL

                For Respondent  :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

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

 Dated :20/12/2010

 O R D E R
            K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
                     * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                      W.P.C.No.19361 of 2010
                    ----------------------------------------
           Dated this the 20th day of December 2010

                             J U D G M E N T

K.M.JOSEPH,J

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the

following reliefs:

a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other

appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing

Respondents 2 to 4 to provide adequate police

protection to the lives of the Petitioner, his

family members and their properties;

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other

appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing

the 1st respondent that the Government may

provide special consideration to the old aged ex-

servicemen and for redressal of their genuine

grievances;

2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The complaint of the petitioner is essentially that the

5th respondent, a Subordinate Police Officer, has sent an

anonymous letter to the petitioner threatening his life and

destruction of his property. The learned counsel for the 5th

W.P.C.No.19361 of 2010 2

respondent submits that he has not threatened the petitioner

and that he has no intention to cause any threat to the petitioner.

4. Today also, when the matter came up, the learned

counsel for the 5th respondent reiterates that the 5th respondent

has not threatened the petitioner and that he has no intention to

cause any threat to the petitioner.

5. We record the same and close the writ petition. We

leave open the 2nd prayer.

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
jsr

// True Copy// PA to Judge

W.P.C.No.19361 of 2010 3

W.P.C.No.19361 of 2010 4

K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

.No. of 200

ORDER/JUDGMENT

30/082010


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.100 seconds.