Disposed

Balakrishnan v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Vanchiyoor

Kerala HC19 Jul 2010WP(C)/16568/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking protection of life and property. Directing the Sub Inspector to protect the petitioner from the second respondent's men, the Court clarified that this did not grant permission for illegal booth operation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to provide protection to the life of the petitioner against the second respondent and his men.

Balakrishnan Vs the Sub Inspector of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶3

MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 16568 of 2010(U) --------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

¶7

BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KULATHUVEEDU, TC.28/998, KAITHAMUKKU, FORT.P.O, VACHIYOOR VILLAGE.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.P.P.BIJU SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

¶11

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

SRI.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, LOCAL COMMITTEE SECRETARY OF CPIM PARTY, A.K.G.SANNIDHI, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1 ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA FOR R2

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 16568 of 2010

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT.P1 :A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DT.3.2.2003.

¶19

EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DT.11.5.2010.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶21

// TRUE COPY//

¶22

K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶23

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 16568 of 2010 U

¶24

¶25

Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Joseph, J.

¶28

The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the first respondent to afford sufficient and meaningful protection to the life and property of the petitioner, specifically to run the Bunk shop covered by Ext.P1.

¶29

Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner was the Branch Secretary of C.P.I.(M). Fed up with the new trends in the party, he resigned from the party and is running a Milma Booth at Kaithamukku in Thiruvananthapuram. Alleging that the petitioner refused to co-operate with the Harthal announced on 27.4.2010, a group of people, on 10.5.2010 attacked and destroyed the shop of the petitioner. The police is not taking any action, it is submitted.

¶30

W.P.(C).No. 16568 of 2010

¶31

¶32

A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent, wherein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows. The petitioner was dismissed from the party for misusing his position as the Branch Secretary. While he was in charge as Branch Secretary, he used to collect money unauthorisedly from the shops and local vendors in the name of the party. Knowing this, the party officials warned him, but he continued his illegal activities, which resulted in lowering the reputation of the party. Infuriated by the dismissal of the petitioner, he was trying to do troubles to the party. Now he joined in the Indian National Congress. He is running the Milma booth without any licence from the Corporation and he erected the front of the shop encroaching the public road. Eventhough he is authorised to sell only milma products, he is selling cigarettes and banned pan masala. The police have registered a case against the supporters of C.P.I.(M) on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner.

¶33

It may be true that the petitioner is running the milma booth by encroaching the public road or that he is selling products, including cigarettes and pan masala. But at the same time, the second

¶34

W.P.(C).No. 16568 of 2010

¶35

respondent or his men cannot cause any threat to the life of the petitioner.

¶36

In such circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition

¶37

directing the first respondent to provide protection to the life of the petitioner as against the second respondent and his men. However, we make it clear that this judgment should not be understood as meaning that we have granted protection to the petitioner to run the milma booth, if it is put up on the public road in an illegal manner. We also make it clear that this judgment should not be understood as meaning that action in accordance with law cannot be taken against the petitioner, if facts and law so warrant.

¶38

Judge

¶39

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶40

Balakrishnan v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Vanchiyoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishnan v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Vanchiyoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United Spirits Ltd. Vs Dy.Superintendent of Police and Others

Kumary Joshy Vs State of Kerala

Gouri.B & Another Vs Superintendent of Police, Kollam & Ors.

Das Vs Circle Inspector of Police Poovar & Ors.

Kochurani Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Major.K.a.Abraham Vs the S.P.of Police,Kollam and Others