Petitioner sought writ directing police to protect its office from respondents 3 and 4 following alleged trespasses and break-ins. The police Station House Officer submitted that the underlying dispute was settled and no criminal case was registered. The court vacated the interim order for protection and closed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942
W.P(C).No.872 OF 2021(H)
PETITIONER:
THAMESBAY MARKETING LLP, WITH ADDRESS AT 40/2870A, CHANDRIKA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, PIPELINE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM , ERNAKULAM,-682 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER, SAJEER A., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMEDALI, FLAT NO.506, OCEANUS MAPLE, VATTEKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM-682 024
BY ADVS. SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI SMT. FATHIMA K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, 12TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM – 682011.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, CIVIL LINE LINE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM JUNCTION, ERNAKULAMN - 682 025.
3 VISHNU, MUSSERI VALAPPIL HOUSE, ELINJIPARA, PARIYARAM, THRISSUR - 680 721.
4 AHAMMED SHAREEF, ANAMITHADAN HOUSE, MUNDAKULAM, P.O., MUTHUVALLUR, MALAPPURAM - 673 638.
W.P(C).No.872 OF 2021
2
R1 - R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 - SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA R3 SMT.K.VINAYA
SRI. SUNILNATH N B GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).No.872 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a Limited Liability Partnership engaged in multi level marketing, having its office at 40/2870A, Chandrika Building, Pipeline Road, Palarivattom, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to render necessary, sufficient and effective police protection to the life of its officials and staff and also to its properties, as against respondents 3 and 4 and their men and sympathizers. In the writ petition, it is alleged that, on 02.12.2020, at about 11.00 a.m., respondents 3 and 4 along with 15 others entered into the office premises of the petitioner, breaking doors and glass panels and destroying certain CCTV cameras. After extracting CCTV footage, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 complaint dated 02.12.2020 before the 2nd respondent Station House Officer, Palarivattom Police Station. However, no action was taken. On 15.12.2020, respondents 3 and 4 along with two others made an attempt to trespass into the petitioner's premises and tried to break open the main door. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 complaint dated 17.12.2020 before the 2nd respondent, which was followed Ext.P8 complaint dated
W.P(C).No.872 OF 2021
4
21.12.2020. Due to inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 complaint dated 29.12.2020 before the 1st respondent Commissioner of Police, Kochi City and thereafter, moved this writ petition before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. The documents marked as Exts.P6(a) and P10 are certain photographs taken from CCTV footage.
W.P(C).No.872 OF 2021
5
premises and caused damages. Based on that complaint, both parties were summoned to the police station. On enquiry, it was understood that no such incident had taken place. Since the petitioner's grievance was that respondents 3 and 4 should not enter its institution and cause any problems, the petitioner had agreed to refund the money within one month upon respondents 3 and 4 returning the products. Since it was acceptable to respondents 3 and 4, the petition was disposed of and no case was registered. In the statement, it is also stated that the police is always willing to render effective and adequate protection to the petitioner, whenever required. If there is any unlawful activity from the side of respondents 3 and 4, the police will take stringent action against them.
W.P(C).No.872 OF 2021
6
respondents 3 and 4 in connection with the multi level marketing business of the petitioner. When both parties were summoned by the 2nd respondent Station House Officer, the petitioner agreed to refund money within one month upon respondents 3 and 4 returning the products and the matter was accordingly settled. Though it is alleged in the writ petition that respondents 3 and 4 along with their men and sympathisers attacked the office premises and caused damages, the petitioner has not identified anyone other than respondents 3 and 4 in the complaints filed before the police. The fact that respondents 3 and 4 are persons who were dealing with the products marketed by the petitioner is not disclosed in the writ petition.
Since, it is stated in the statement filed by the 2nd respondent that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 have already been settled, there is no necessity for the continuance of the interim order dated 31.01.2021 and the same is accordingly vacated. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition is also closed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
SPR
W.P(C).No.872 OF 2021
7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INCORPORATION CERTIFICATE DATED 27.04.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF THE STAFF EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER WITH REGISTRATION NO.321AANFT7385A1Z3 DATED 26.07.2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO THE PETITIONER ASSIGNING IT TAX DEDUCTION ACCOUNT NUMBER (TAN) CHNTO5231C EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT CARD WITH NO.AANFT7385A OF THE PETITIONER FIRM EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02.12.2020 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT OBTAINED FROM THE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF PHOTOCOPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ASSAILANTS EXTRACTED FROM THE CCTV CAMERAS ON 2.12.2020 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.12.2020 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT OBTAINED FROM PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.12.2020 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.12.2020 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT DTD 26.12.2020 ISSUED BY CITY POLICE OFFICE, KOCHI
W.P(C).No.872 OF 2021
8
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF ASSAILANTS EXTRACTED FROM THE CCTV CAMERAS ON 17.12.2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim order directing police protection should continue given the settlement of the dispute between the parties.
Whether the petitioner has identified specific respondents responsible for alleged damages to the office premises or goods.
Thamesbay Marketing LLP
Commissioner of Police, Kochi City
Station House Officer, Palarivattom Police Station
Vishnu
Ahammed Shareef
Anil K. Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
