Partly allowed

K.Karunakaran v. the Superintendent of Police and Others

Kerala HC22 Mar 2011WP(C)/2311/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala examined a petition for police protection under Article 226 filed by a petitioner against his neighbors. Finding no subsequent events after January 2010 to justify apprehension of violence, the court allowed the petition in part by noting the submission of responding counsel and accepting the Police Commissioner's view that no further directions were necessary.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.Karunakaran Vs the Superintendent of Police… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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 TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 2311 of 2010(L)

¶5

-------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

------------------

¶8

K.KARUNAKARAN, MANDADETHU VEEDU, ELIPPAKULAM P.O., PALLICKAL VIA, ALAPPUZHA DIST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

-----------------------

¶12

1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶15

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶16

5. AJI KUMAR, MANGADETHU VEEDU, ELAIPIKULAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT MANNORATHU

¶17

VEEDU, ELIPPIKULAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA TALUK,

¶18

ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶19

6. SAJI KUMAR, MANAGADETHU VEEDU, ELAPPIKULAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZAH DISTRICT

¶20

7. SAVITHRI SIVARAMAN, MANAGADETHU VEEDU, ELAPPIKULAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZAH DISTRICT

¶21

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.M.CHARISMA R6 & 7 BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 2311 of 2010(L)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶26

EXT.P1. COPY OF REGISTRATION DATED 18.1.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶27

EXT.P2. COPY OF FIRST IFORMATION REPORT BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLIKUNNAM.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶33

WPC No.2311 of 2010

¶34

Dated this the 22^nd March, 2011

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Basant, J.

¶37

This petition for police protection filed as early as on 22.1.2010 remains without disposal even now. The petitioner has sought issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to the police officials, respondents 1 to 4 to afford protection to him against the apprehended violent conduct on the part of respondents 5 to 7. The matter came up for hearing last on 22.1.2009. Thereafter there was no posting.

¶38

The learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 submits that the party respondents have no intention whatsoever to direct any violent conduct against the petitioner. The interim order was passed as early as on 22.1.2010 and evidently, there has been no subsequent event justifying the apprehension of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 4 submits that in the perception of the

¶39

WPC No.2311/2010 2

¶40

police officials, there is no threat against the life or person of the petitioner warranting issue of directions under Article 226. If there be any such threat, necessary action shall be taken by respondents 1 to 4, submits the learned Government Pleader.

¶41

We record the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader. We take note of the fact that after 22.1.2010, there, evidently, has been no event requiring any further orders in this matter. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. This writ petition is in these circumstances allowed in part to the above extent.

¶42

R.BASANT

¶43

K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶44

css/

K.Karunakaran v. the Superintendent of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.Karunakaran v. the Superintendent of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fathima Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others

R.Sasikumar Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Kunjahammed Vs the Supdt. of Police, Malappuram.

V.M.Mujeeb Rahman Vs the D.Y.S.P.Tirur and Others

Benny Jabakumar Jose Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Manakkil Traders Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva