Kerala High Court
Mr.Shubin John vs The State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2014
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2017/27TH ASHADHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 21074 of 2017 (H)
---------------------------------
PETITIONER:
--------------
MR.SHUBIN JOHN
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O JOHN JENMONMES, RESIDING AT AALLINTTE
THEKKATHIL VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, PATTATHANAM P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT,
WORKING AS THE MANAGER AND RUSTEE OF THE "KINGS SCHOOL, KOTTIYAM,
KOLLAM DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
KOLLAM, PIN- 691 001
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 691 001
4. MR. SURESH BABU
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT SOBHA BHAVAN,
UDAYA MARTHANDAPURAM CHERRY, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM
DIST- 691 001
5. SMT. NARMADA SURESH BABU
AGED 50 YEARS, W/O SURESH BABU, RESIDING AT SHOBA
BHAVAN, UDAYA MARTHANDAPURAM CHERRY, MUNDAKKAL WEST,
KOLLAM DIST- 691 001
R1-R3 BY ADV. ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
R4-R5 BY ADV. SMT.SMITHA S.PILLAI
R4-R5 BY ADV. SMT.ALICE THOMAS
R4-R5 BY ADV. SMT.M.C.SINY
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 21074 of 2017 (H)
---------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------
EXHIBITP1 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER IN GO
(MS) 145/2014 G DATED 04-08-2014 ISSUED BY THE GENEAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,L THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23-05-2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
-----------------------
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
&
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
------------------------------------------------
W. P. (C) No.21074 of 2017
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
1. aHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking orders of police protection allegedly in the wake of threat from respondents 4 and 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the property belonging to several persons including the 5th respondent and her son. In the property so purchased, the petitioner has established a school. Allegation of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent, the husband of the fifth respondent, is demanding additional W. P. (C) No.21074 of 2017 -2- payments from him and that he had trespassed into the school premises and caused obstructions in order to force the petitioner to heed to the demands. It is alleged that though a complaint was filed, the police did not take any action.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 submits that though properties were purchased from the fifth respondent and her son, the petitioner did not pay the sale consideration. It is stated that even a cheque that was given was not presented on the instructions of the petitioner and that a complaint for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC filed by the fourth respondent is pending before the police. It is stated that they have not done anything affecting the normal functioning of the school nor do they intend to do anything.
4. Learned Government Pleader, who has obtained instructions in the matter, states that enquiries made on receipt of the complaint reveal that nothing was done by W. P. (C) No.21074 of 2017 -3- respondents 4 and 5 affecting the normal functioning of the school. Learned Government Pleader further states that as such, there is no situation warranting any police protection.
5. Irrespective of the monetary claims of the respondents against the petitioner which is a matter to be enforced before the appropriate forum, insofar as this writ petition is concerned, the prayer is for directing that police protection shall be granted. Such a prayer can be considered only if the petitioner establishes that any cognizable offence has been committed by the party respondents or at least there is a threat of such a situation. Apart from the allegations of the petitioner, he has not produced any materials before this Court to substantiate his case. These allegations have been denied by the party respondents also. On the other hand, the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader shows that his allegations against the party respondents having caused obstruction to the school is unproved. W. P. (C) No.21074 of 2017 -4-
6. In such circumstances, we are not persuaded to think that the petitioner has made out a case justifying orders from this Court.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE kns/-
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE