IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 748 of 2010()
1. NAJEEMA BEEVI.K,W/O.NAZEER, BALU MAHAL,
... Petitioner
2. NIYAS NAZEER ALIAS BALU, S/O.NAZEER,
3. SHANAVAS,S/O.KULSAM BEEVI,BALU MAHAL,
Vs
1. ANSARI,S/O.MUHAMMED YUSUF,SAIBER VILLA
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ERAVIPURAM
For Petitioner :SMT.S.KARTHIKA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :19/01/2011
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.No. 748 of 2010
in
W.P.(C) No. 15804 of 2010 A &
W.P.(C) No. 23793 of 2010 Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011
O R D E R
Joseph, J.
The above Review Petition is filed by respondents 3 to 5 in
W.P.(C) No. 15804 of 2010. The said Writ Petition was filed by
the first respondent in the Review Petition seeking police
protection. The said case was disposed of, inter alia, recording
the submission of respondents 3 to 5 that the allegations made
by the writ petitioner are false and further that they have no
intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner.
Therefore this Court closed the Writ Petition directing
respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate protection to the life of
the petitioner, in case there is any threat from respondents 3 to 5/
R.P.No. 748 of 2010 & connected cases
2
the review petitioners. It is feeling aggrieved by the said judgment that
the Review Petition is filed.
2. It is complained that under the shade of the observations made
in the judgment, the writ petitioner came to the house of the review
petitioners and started shouting abusive words. It is also stated that
taking advantage of the observations in the judgment, the first
respondent is harassing the review petitioners.
3. It is stated that this Court did not go into the allegations raised
by the parties and the Writ Petition is only a vexatious litigation.
There is reference to the complaints filed by the review petitioners.
The review petitioners have also filed W.P.(C) No.23793 of 2010,
wherein they have sought for police protection to the life of the
petitioners and their family members and to take action on their
complaints. The 4th respondent, against whom protection is sought, is
none other than the first respondent in R.P.No. 748 of 2010. There is
reference made to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 15804 of
2010, in the other Writ Petition as Ext.P5.
R.P.No. 748 of 2010 & connected cases
3
4. We heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned
Government Pleader.
5. As far as the Review Petition is concerned, the main
complaint is that in view of the observations made in the Writ Petition
that in case there is any threat, the police shall give protection to the
life of the writ petitioner, it is being misused and the writ petitioner is
harassing the review petitioners. We record the submission of the
learned counsel on behalf of respondents 3 to 5 that the said
respondents have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the writ
petitioner. We direct that if there is any threat, protection shall be
granted. However, in view of the apprehension of the review
petitioners we modify the judgment.
6. We allow the Review Petition for the purpose of effecting
certain modifications so as to safeguard the interests of the
respondents also. We modify the judgment in the Writ Petition and
direct that in case any threat from respondents 3 to 5 in the Writ
Petition is brought to the notice of the second respondent, the second
R.P.No. 748 of 2010 & connected cases
4
respondent in the Writ Petition will look into the matter and if threat
is found to be genuine, he shall give protection to the life of the
petitioner as against respondents 3 to 5.
W.P.(C) No. 23793 of 2010
We have already passed an interim order in this case on
19.8.2010. After hearing the parties, we dispose of the Writ Petition
by making the interim order absolute.
(K.M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm