IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23383 of 2008(H)
1. SEENA, W/O.JOSE, AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. K.V.JOSE, AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.VARGHESE,
Vs
1. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA
... Respondent
2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD
3. MARIYAKUTTY, AGED 84 YEARS,
4. THOMAS, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 40 YEARS,
5. THOMAS, S/O.GEORGE, 50 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :05/08/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.23383 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioners are husband and wife. The second petitioner is a
liquor addict. He was undergoing de-addiction treatment in
S.H.Hospital, Painkulam. While so, the brothers and mother of the
second petitioner moved the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court,
Thodupuzha alleging that the second petitioner is illegally detained in
the hospital. The learned Magistrate issued a warrant for the
production of the second petitioner. As per Exhibit P1 proceedings, the
learned Magistrate, on his production, ordered his release. The
petitioners submit, respondents 3 to 5 want to see the second
petitioner remain as an alcohol addict so that they can enjoy the
income from the assets of the said petitioner. That is why they moved
the Magistrate’s Court and got him released from the hospital, it is
submitted. Later, when the petitioners approached the hospital, they
were not willing to admit the second petitioner for
treatment. In the above background, the petitioner filed Exhibits
P3 and P4 representations before the police and thereafter this Writ
W.P.(C)No.23383/08 -2-
Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs.
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1
and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the lives of the
petitioners to complete the treatment of the 2nd petitioner for
de-addiction at S.H.Hospital, Painkulam without any kind of
nuisance, hindrance, interferences, disturbances and
obstruction from the part of the respondents 3 to 5 and their
men.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and
2 to see that the 2nd petitioner’s treatment at S.H.Hospital,
Painkulam is fully completed peacefully and without any
interference from the part of respondents 3 to 5.
The hospital authorities are not willing to admit the second petitioner.
That is why he could not get treatment. Therefore, the above prayers are
plainly untenable in the light of the pleadings in the Writ Petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn
