IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20675 of 2010(H)
1. MUHAMMED ISMAIL, AGED 33 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. VENU, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
4. SAJEEVAN, THE MANDALAM PRESIDENT,
5. K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN, EX.MANDALAM PRESIDENTB
For Petitioner :SRI.E.D.GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :05/08/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 20675 of 2010 H
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing
respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection
to the life of the petitioner and his family as also to
employees of the petitioner.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
respondents not to harass or obstruct the petitioner
and his family and employees as also not to
destroy the office of the petitioner.”
W.P.(C).No. 20675 of 2010
2
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner
is conducting a travel agency with partnership of the third respondent
from 2005 onwards. The third respondent has another business at
Ernakulam. Therefore, for the last three years he has not come to the
firm. Now he is causing problems in the office of the petitioner.
Respondents 4 and 5 are local political leaders. They have threatened
the petitioner that they will destroy the office and manhandle the
petitioner and his family members. He filed a complaint before the
first respondent.
3. Though served, there is no appearance for the third
respondent.
4. Today when the matter came up, learned counsel for
respondents 4 and 5 would submit that respondents 4 and 5 have no
intention at all to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner or his
family members. We record the said submission and direct that in case
there in any threat to the life of the petitioner, his wife, children and
W.P.(C).No. 20675 of 2010
3
employees from respondents 3 to 5 and which is brought to the notice
of respondents 1 and 2, respondents 1 and 2 shall afford adequate
protection to the petitioner, his wife, children and employees.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm