Kerala High Court
N.P.Hafsath vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2014
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur, P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2014/1ST JYAISHTA, 1936
WP(C).No. 12271 of 2014 (H)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONERS:
---------------------
1. N.P.HAFSATH,
W/O N.P MUHAMMED, MUHABATH MANZIL, THERUR PALAYODE,
PAST EDAYANOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 595.
2. N.P MUHAMMED,,
MUHABATH MANZIL, THERUR PALAYODE, PAST EDAYANOOR,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 595.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU
SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3. THE SUPT OF POLICE,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.
4. SRI. P SUKUMARAN,
DEPUTY SUPT OF POLICE, MATTANUR POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.
R1 TO R3 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).NO. 12271 OF 2014 (H)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
---------------
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 1100/2013 OF THE MATTANUR
POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE
2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P3 : ATRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS
DAUGHTER BEFORE THE SUPT OF POLICE, KANNUR.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & P.V. ASHA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 12271 OF 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2014
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Heard learned counsel representing petitioners as well as learned State Attorney.
2. On going through the contents of the writ petition as well as on hearing submissions, we are of the opinion, the initial dispute pertaining to partnership business of the parties is the route cause for the alleged trouble. We also note that several cases are registered against the 2nd petitioner and son of the petitioners. According to petitioners, the persistent interference and illegal activities are only to threaten them and their son to abide by the unlawful demands at the instance of 4th respondent. Therefore, they are before this Court. It is also placed on record that already the Superintendent of Police concerned is aware of the allegations made against the 4th respondent and a preliminary enquiry is initiated.
WP(C) No. 12271 of 2014 -:2:-
3. Learned State Attorney submits, within two weeks the entire enquiry will be over and Superintendent of Police concerned will take suitable action depending upon the outcome of the enquiry. It is needless to say that petitioners also must be heard as they are aggrieved parties who had lodged complaint before the higher officer of the 4th respondent. Therefore, respondent authorities are directed to hear petitioners as well regarding their grievance against 4th respondent and then take suitable action in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
P.V. Asha, Judge.
ttb/22/05 WP(C) No. 12271 of 2014 -:3:-