Allowed

Surendran v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC8 Jun 2011WP(C)/10745/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala converted an interim order mandating the Sub Inspector of Police to afford protection to the petitioner against obstruction by the second respondent into an absolute order. The petition was allowed after the petitioner successfully argued that the directions pertain to activities permitted by a Revenue Divisional Office order.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 8.4.2011 directing the first respondent to afford police protection to the petitioner is made absolute.

Surendran Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 10745 of 2011(P) ----------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S): -----------------------

¶6

SURENDRAN, S/O.VELU, AGED 49 YEARS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, NEDUVARANKODE, (VIA) CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------

¶9

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689121.

¶10

2. PRADEEP BHARATHAN, S/O.BHARATHAN, NEDUVINAL KIZHAKKETHIL, MAMBRA, NEDUVARANKODE P.O., CHENGANNUR, PIN - 689508.

¶11

R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

tss

¶14

W.P.(C) 10745/2011

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶17

P1:- COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DTD. 7.2.2011 GIVEN BY THE AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AQUAACULTURE, KERALA (ADAK).

¶18

P2:- COPY OF THE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B-12531/11 DTD. 23.3.2011 PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHENGANNUR.

¶19

P3:- COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DTD. 22.2.2011 MADE BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CHERIYANAD KRISHI BHAVAN.

¶20

P4:- COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR POLICE PROTECTION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT ON 29.3.2011.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

NIL:-

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶27

W.P.(C).NO.10745 OF 2011

¶28

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2011.

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Basant, J:

¶31

Petitioner seeks police protection to undertake the activity which he has been permitted to undertake as per Ext.P2 order issued by the Sub Collector, Chengannur. It is his case that the 2^nd respondent is raising illegal and untenable obstruction to the petitioner's attempt to carry out the permitted activity under Ext.P2. Second respondent has been served. There is no appearance for the 2^nd respondent. Learned Government Pleader on behalf of the first respondent submits that the first respondent shall afford police protection to the petitioner as already directed by the interim order dated 8.4.2011. The same must be read as part of this judgment.

¶32

We note that on 8.4.2011 in the detailed interim order passed by this Court, the following interim direction was issued.

¶33

“It is accordingly directed that the first respondent shall afford protection to the petitioner to undertake the activity strictly in accordance with Ext.P2 order against any obstruction that

¶34

W.P.(C).NO.10745 OF 2011

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

may be raised by the 2^nd respondent.”

¶37

There is no appearance for the 2^nd respondent. Learned Government Pleader has no objection and we are satisfied in these circumstances that the interim order dated

¶38

8.4.2011 extracted above can be made absolute.

¶39

In the result:

¶40

a. This petition is allowed.

¶41

b. Interim order dated 8.4.2011 extracted above is

¶42

made absolute.

¶43

Sd/=

¶44

R. BASANT, JUDGE.

¶45

Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.

¶46

/true copy/

¶47

P.S. to Judge.

¶48

Surendran v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendran v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

St.Sebastian Senior Basic School Vs Velayudhan Ezhuthassan

A.M.George Vs Managing Director

Dr.N.R.Nisha Vs Commissioner of Police,Ernakulam

Board of Trustees Port of Cochin Vs Jaisu Shipping Company Private Ltd. and

Rev.Fr.Nicholas Pallivathukkal Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Anthru and Others Vs the Sub Inspector of Police and Others