Disposed

R.Shankar v. S.I. of Police

Kerala HC21 May 2014WP(C)/11133/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a direction to police officers to provide adequate protection for the election process. The court observed that protection would be provided if requested by the Returning Officer and closed the petition without making the grant of protection mandatory.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; the matter is left for the Returning Officer to decide according to his wisdom.

R.Shankar Vs S.I. of Police — Election Law | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2014/31ST VAISAKHA, 1936

¶6

WP(C).No. 11133 of 2014 (N)

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. R.SHANKAR REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY PUTHAN COIL SREE BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE BUILDING, PETTA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. R.SANKAR GENERAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION PUTHAN COIL SREE BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE BUILDING, PETTA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ

¶11

SMT.E.S.SONI

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. S.I. OF POLICE PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024.

¶14

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 027.

¶15

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020.

¶16

4. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

¶17

5. P.AYYAPPAN S/O. PICHANDI CHETTIAR, 20/1361, KARAMANA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶18

6. K.RAMACHANDRAN THENGUVILA VEEDU, AMBALATHARA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 026.

¶19

7. L.C.DASAN SAMANJANA, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020.

¶20

8. K.SUDARSHANAN USHUS, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶21

WP(C).No. 11133 of 2014

¶22

-2-

¶23

Addl.9. K.VISWANATHAN NAIR RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE, RETURNING OFFICER SOCIAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION, PUTHENCOIL SREE BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE BUILDING, PETTA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695002.

¶24

ADDL. R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06/05/2014 IN IA 5944/2014.

¶25

ADDLR9 BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR R5,R7 & 8 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI R5,R 7 & 8 BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR R1 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

WP(C).No. 11133 of 2014 (N) ----------------------------

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶30

P1 : COPY OF THE ELECTION SCHEDULE DTD.25.3.2014. P2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP 626/13 DTD.3.4.2014. P3 : COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE RETURNING OFFICER DTD.3.4.2014. P4 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONERS DTD.7.4.2014. P5 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD.7.4.2014. P6 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD.7.4.2014. P7 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONERS DTD.7.4.2014.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶32

EXHIBIT R5(a): COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 26.4.2014 SUBMITTED BY SOME OF THE MEMBERS TO THE RETURNING OFFICER.

¶33

/TRUE COPY/

¶34

PS TO JUDGE

¶35

MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J & P.V.ASHA, J.

¶36

W.P(C).No. 11133 of 2014

¶37

Dated this the 21^st May, 2014 JUDGMENT

¶38

Manjula Chellur, C.J.

¶39

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶40

“Direct the respondents 1 and 4 to grant adequate police protection to the petitioners and the Returning Officer for the smooth conduct of election as per Exhibit P-1 by the issue of a writ of mandamus of such other writ or order or direction.”

¶41

It is contended by petitioner that during the time

¶42

of election to be held on 25.5.2014, he apprehends trouble at the instigation of respondents 5 to 8. Learned counsel representing respondents 5 to 8 submits, these respondents are only interested in proper conduction of election process in accordance with the procedure contemplated and they do not intend to create any hurdle including violence or untoward incidence in any manner

¶43

WP(C).11133/14 2

¶44

whatsoever as apprehended by the petitioners. Additional 9^th respondent is the Returning Officer, who is none other than a retired District Judge in-charge of conducting the election.

¶45

Learned Government Pleader submits, if any representation is received from concerned authority, i.e., Returning Officer, definitely they would provide such protection and even the place of election is very close to the jurisdictional police station.

¶46

In the light of such submissions of learned Government Pleader, we are of the opinion, 9^th respondent must think over the matter and do the needful according to his wisdom.

¶47

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is closed.

¶48

MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

¶50

vgs21.5.14

R.Shankar v. S.I. of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Shankar v. S.I. 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

Immanuel Panioty Vs Pallipuram Grama Panchayath

Brothers Arts & Sports Club Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Latin Catholic Association Vs State of Kerala

Dr.K.Raviprasada Vs State of Kerala & Others

Yesurajan.a. Vs Pushpam Simon

Rekha Sumesh Vs the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram