IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13789 of 2010(W)
1. SAM THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS,AGED 30,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM,
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. DALIYA P.E.,D/O.EVDEUSE,
4. EVDEUSE,PANDIYALAKKAL (H),
5. SIBY ANTONY,D/O.ANTONY,
6. ANTONY,CHAKKIATH HOUSE,PADMAPURAM P.O.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA)
For Respondent :SRI.B.PRAMOD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :07/06/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.13789 of 2010-W
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 7th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
“1. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order, direction commanding
respondent Nos.1 and 2 to give sufficient police
protection to the life of the petitioner as well as to the
Institution.
2. to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1
and 2 to provide adequate and sufficient police
protection to the petitioner and his institution to run the
institution without any threat, intimidation or physical
obstruction being caused by respondents 3 to 6 or
anybody acting under them.
3. to declare that respondents 3 to 6 have no manner
of right or authority to cause obstruction to the
petitioner to conduct the institution.
A declaration is also sought.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as
follows: Petitioner is the Branch Manager of an institution
owned by M/s.Treasia Mathew. She is a non-resident and is
now in Australia. It is submitted that the institution of the
WPC No.13789/2010 -2-
petitioner is engaged in the business of service assistance for
training at overseas which includes students visa, training,
admission in professional institution, professional registration
IELTS OET. Respondents 3 and 5 got registered in the
petitioner institution for overseas studies and student VISA.
There is reference to Exts.P1 and P2 agreements. It is the
case of the petitioner that respondents could not arrange bank
loan to meet their expenses for studies in Australia and
respondents did not join within time. There is further
reference to threat and interference by the 4th, 5th and 6th
respondents. They demanded back the process fee. It is
alleged that they also threatened the petitioner that they will
do away the petitioner unless he pays compensation.
Petitioner filed Exts.P3 and P4 complaints. A counter affidavit
has been filed by respondents 5 and 6.
3. We are not going into the allegations made by
the petitioner as against the party respondents or the
allegations in the counter affidavit. Whatever be the
complaints that the party respondents have against the
petitioner they cannot physically obstruct or interfere with the
working of the petitioner’s institution. In such circumstances,
WPC No.13789/2010 -3-
the writ petition is disposed of as follows:
There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to
give protection to the life of the petitioner for running his
institution without any intimidation or physical obstruction by
respondents 3 to 6. However, we make it clear that this
judgment shall not stand in the way of the police authorities
registering a crime, investigating any complaint they may
have received or will receive from the party respondents or
from any other person against the petitioner and brining it to a
logical conclusion.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS