Allowed

P.R.Prasad v. Superintendent of Police, Trivandrum

Kerala HC1 Oct 2014WP(C)/24639/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted the petitioner's writ petition seeking police protection for executing a work agreement. Relying on a prior judgment and a supplemental agreement extending the project period, the Court directed police authorities to provide protection until the agreement's expiry.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 to 4 to grant adequate police protection to the petitioner to carry out the work until the expiry of the extended agreement on 15.10.2014.

P.R.Prasad Vs Superintendent of Police… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/9TH ASWINA, 1936

¶7

WP(C).No. 24639 of 2014 (D)

¶8

PETITIONER :

¶9

P.R.PRASAD

¶10

SUNILA BHAVAN, MITHRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

¶12

SRI.S.SUJIN

¶13

RESPONDENTS :

¶14

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL - 695 101, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOOTAM - 695 582, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADINAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, HARBOUR ENGINEERING THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 521.

¶19

THE SECRETARY, FISHERIES HARBOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶20

VIJAYAKUMAR.K., KESAVA MANDIRAM, CHANDHAMKARA P.O., KADINAMULAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.

¶21

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 682 001.

¶22

BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. SUJITH MATHEW JOSE

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No. 24639 of 2014 (D)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S' EXHIBITS :

¶27

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.D2-748/11/EE DATED 9/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶28

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15/6/2012 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT ALONGWITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶29

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER AGREEMENT DATED 27/8/2012 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 6TH RESPONDENT ALONGWITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶30

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/6/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR TO RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ALONGWITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶31

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 17/7/2014 IN WPC NO.17236/2014.

¶32

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT. 25/8/2014 IN RP NO.599/2014 IN WPC NO.17236/2014.

¶33

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 12/9/2014.

¶34

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 DATED 20/9/2014.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 24639 OF 2014

¶42

- - - - Dated this the 1^st day of October, 2014

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Ashok Bhushan, Ag.C.J.

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Notice was issued to respondent No.7, which has been reported to be served, but no one has appeared when the case was taken up today.

¶46

Petitioner by this writ petition has prayed for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to grant adequate police protection to the petitioner, his workers and properties including machinery to carry out the work entrusted to the petitioner under Exts.P3 and P7 agreements, without any threat or obstruction from the 7^th respondent, his men or anybody else.

¶47

Petitioner had earlier come to this Court by filing a writ petition, W.P.(C) No.17236 of 2014, which was disposed of on 17.07.2014 directing respondents 3 and 4 to ensure that petitioner is permitted to carry out his work as per the agreement. Review Petition was filed by the 7^th respondent in

¶48

WP(C) No. 24639 of 2014

¶49

-:2:-

¶50

which it was stated that agreement was limited till 17.07.2014 which was extended to 19.07.2014 only. The Review Petition was disposed of by order dated 25.08.2014 with the observation that no police protection could be given to the petitioner after the expiry of the period of agreement.

¶51

Petitioner has filed a copy of the supplemental

¶52

agreement as Ext.P7 by which it is clear that the period of agreement has been extended till 15.10.2014. The period having already been extended till 15.10.2014, the police authorities are obliged to extend protection till the expiry of the period of agreement as directed earlier.

¶53

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is

¶54

disposed of.

¶55

Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.

¶56

A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶57

ttb/01/10

¶58

WP(C) No. 24639 of 2014

¶59

-:3:-

P.R.Prasad v. Superintendent of Police, Trivandrum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.R.Prasad v. Superintendent of Police, Trivandrum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Athulya

Mubashir Shamsudheen Vs Neha Narendran

Manoj Vs Sub Inspector of Police

P.N.Sivadasan Vs P.C.Alexander

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Sudheesh Das

Johnson V.M. Vs the Pavaratty Grama Panchayat