IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12470 of 2010(G)
1. M/S NETSYENERGY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE HOME
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. SRI.JAYAN,S/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI,
6. V.AJAYAGHOSH,S/O.VASAVAN,AGED 40 YEARS,
7. R.MANIKANDAN,S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 38
8. R.MADHU,S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 38 YEARS,
9. G.CHANDRAN,S/O.GANGADHARAN,AGED 50 YRS,
10. RAJAN,S/O.KOCHAPPY AGED 52 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
For Respondent :SRI.T.A.SREE KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :20/01/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
***********************
W.P(C) Nos.12470 & 13398 of 2010
*****************************
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
W.P(c) No.12470 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner, who has
purchased an item of property, which was involved in an
insolvency proceedings before the court of the Subordinate
Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The short prayer of the petitioner is
that police protection may be afforded to the petitioner to put up
boundary over the property which he has purchased. According
to the petitioner, there is virtually no dispute about the right of
the petitioner over the property purchased by him or the
boundaries of that property.
2. We had spent a long time hearing the parties.
Towards the fag end of the hearing, it was brought to our notice
that I.A.No.6331 of 2006 in O.P(I.P) No.2 of 1998 is pending
before the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram,
wherein this specific relief has been claimed. Request was made
in that petition for permission to put up the boundary over the
property purchased by the petitioner and the insolvency court
W.P(C) Nos.12470 & 13398 of 2010 2
was requested to afford police protection to put up such
compound wall.
3. That petition is pending even now and it has not been
disposed of, it was submitted. We wanted both counsel to take
instructions. Both counsel have taken instructions. It is now
conceded that the said petition is pending before the Insolvency
Court. After discussions at the Bar it is agreed that the
petitioner shall seek immediate orders in I.A.No.6331 of 2006.
Parties shall be at liberty to raise all their contentions before the
Insolvency Court, in the proceedings before which court, the
petitioner had purchased the property. In these circumstances,
we are satisfied and it is agreed that this Writ Petition can now
be closed with specific directions to the Subordinate Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram, to dispose of I.A.No.6331 of 2006 in O.P
(I.P) No.2 of 1998, pending before it expeditiously. No further
orders appear to be necessary on that aspect in W.P(c) No.12470
of 2010.
4. After the filing of W.P(c) No.12470 of 2010, the 5th
respondent therein had filed W.P(c) No.13398 of 2010 claiming
directions to the police to afford protection to him for his life.
Not to be left behind, the petitioner in W.P(c) No.12470 of 2010
W.P(C) Nos.12470 & 13398 of 2010 3
has also made a request that protection may be afforded for the
life of the petitioner herein, ie. the officer representing the
petitioner company.
5. The petitioners in both petitioners assert that they
have no intention whatsoever to take law into their hands and
indulge in any contumacious, culpable, wanton or violent acts
against the other. The learned Government Pleader submits that
in the perception of police, there is no threat to the life or person
of either petitioner. If there be any such threat, the police shall
take necessary action and ensure that such threat is abated,
submits the learned Government Pleader.
6. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no
specific directions for police protection for life and person need
be granted to the petitioner in either case. We are satisfied that
the submission/undertaking of the learned Government Pleader
can be accepted.
7. In the result:
A) i) W.P(c) No.12470 of 2010 is dismissed, but
with the specific observation/direction that the
Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, must
dispose of I.A.No.6331 of 2006 in O.P(I.P) No.2 of
W.P(C) Nos.12470 & 13398 of 2010 4
1998 as expeditiously as possible – at any rate, within
a period of three months from 01.02.2011. Needless
to say, the parties shall be at liberty to raise all their
contentions in the said I.A before the Insolvency
Court;
ii) Compliance shall be reported to this Court;
iii) Both parties are directed to appear before
the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, where
I.A.No.6331 of 2006 is pending, on 01.02.2011 to
continue the said proceedings;
iv) The Registry shall forthwith communicate
copy of this order to the Subordinate Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram.
B) W.P(c) No.13398 of 2010 is dismissed.
7. Hand over copies of this judgment to the learned
counsel for the petitioner in both cases.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/
