Disposed

Muhammed Ismail v. Circle Inspector of Police, Kodungallur

Kerala HC5 Aug 2010WP(C)/20675/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed respondents 1 and 2 (police) to afford adequate protection to the petitioner, his family, and employees if any threat to life arises from respondents 3 to 5. It recorded that respondents 4 and 5 denied making threats.

What did the court decide?

Direct notice to police respondents to afford adequate protection to the petitioner and his family/employees in case any threat from respondents 3 to 5 is brought to their notice.

Muhammed Ismail Vs Circle Inspector of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 20675 of 2010(H)

PETITIONER:

MUHAMMED ISMAIL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, KALLINGAL HOUSE, VELLANGALLOOR, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, KODUNGALLOOR.

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶15

KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, KODUNGALLOOR.

¶16

VENU, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, THAYATTUPARAMBIL, P.VEMBALLUR DESOM,

¶17

SREE NARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶18

SAJEEVAN, THE MANDALAM PRESIDENT,

¶19

B.J.P.MANDALAM COMMITTEE OFFICE, KODUNGALLOOR.

¶20

K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN, EX.MANDALAM PRESIDENTB

¶21

B.J.P.MANDALAM COMMITTEE OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR.

¶22

GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1 & 2. ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI FOR R4 & 5 SMT.C.G.PREETHA FOR R SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA FOR R4 &5

¶23

SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR FOR R4 & 5

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C).No. 20675 of 2010

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 8.6.2006 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ERD RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN MUHAMMED ASHRAF AND PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.18.6.2010.

¶31

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.6.2010.

¶32

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶33

// TRUE COPY//

¶34

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

¶35

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 20675 of 2010 H

¶36

- - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Joseph, J.

¶39

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶40

“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.

¶41

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.”

¶42

W.P.(C).No. 20675 of 2010

¶43

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.

¶44

Though served, there is no appearance for the third respondent.

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(C).No. 20675 of 2010

¶47

¶48

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.

¶49

(K. M. JOSEPH) Judge

¶50

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶51

Muhammed Ismail v. Circle Inspector of Police, Kodungallur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Ismail v. Circle Inspector of Police, Kodungallur

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

Rani.K.B Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. and Another

Fr.Joy Koothur Vs the Superintendent & Others

Ravunni Nair Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ismayil.v Vs State of Kerala

K.T.Muhammed Ali @ Bava Haji Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Harish Bal Vs C.I. of Police