Allowed

K.M.Joseph v. District Superintendent of Police, Malappuram

Kerala HC19 Oct 2012WP(C)/24415/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to consider the petitioners' representation dated 06/10/2012 alleging harassment by a police driver regarding an immovable property sale contract, mandating the petitioner to produce the petition and representation.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to consider the second respondent's representation in accordance with law.

K.M.Joseph Vs District Superintendent of Police… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/27TH ASWINA 1934

¶6

WP(C).No. 24415 of 2012 (B)

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. K.M.JOSEPH, S/O.MATHAI, KADUKKAM THODIYIL, THONNICHAL, CHERUR P.O., VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. K.J.KURIAKOSE, S/O.K.M.JOSEPH, KADUKKAM THODIYIL, THONNICHAL, CHERUR P.O., VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN SMT.K.M.RASHMI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM - 676 105.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM - PIN - 676 105.

¶14

3. RAVI, POLICE DRIVER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM - PIN - 676 105.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

WPC.NO.24415/2012 B

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2641/1989 OF THE SRO, TIRURANGADI DATED 24/10/1989.

¶22

P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06/10/2012.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.

¶28

W.P.(C) No.24415 of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶32

The complaint of the petitioners is that the third respondent police driver is abusing his office and with the support of other officials, he is harassing the petitioners in connection with a contract for sale of immovable property. We record that submission and direct that Ext.P2 shall be taken up and considered by the first respondent in accordance with law. The petitioners will produce a copy of this writ petition with a copy of Ext.P2 and a copy of this judgment before the first respondent.

¶33

Writ petition ordered accordingly.

¶34

sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶35

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶36

css/ true copy

¶37

P.S.TO JUDGE

K.M.Joseph v. District Superintendent of Police, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Joseph v. District Superintendent of Police, Malappuram

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

N. Deyanandan Vs Comptroller and Auditor General

India Cements Capital & Finance Ltd. Vs Raghunathan.K.

Vasudevan Vs Rajamma

Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt)

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director for Local Fund Accounts

S.v.P.Pookkoya Vs Lekshadweep State Wakf Board