Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M.V.Somarajan vs The State Of Kerala on 4 October, 2016

Author: Antony Dominic

Bench: Antony Dominic, Anu Sivaraman

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT:

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
                                       &
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

         FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/20TH SRAVANA, 1939

                         WP(C).No. 25927 of 2017 (M)
                        ----------------------------


PETITIONER :
------------

          M.V.SOMARAJAN,
          AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN,
          AMBALATHUM VEETTIL, KUTTICHAL P.O.,
          MANNOORKKARA VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
          PIN-695574.


             BY ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA

RESPONDENTS:
--------------
      1.     THE STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
             DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
             GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      2.     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.

      3.     THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
             ARYANAD POLICE CIRCLE,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.

      4.     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
             NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      5.     R.SUDARSHAN,
             S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, MANTHIKULAM CHARUVILA VEEDU,
             PARUTHIPPALLY P.O., MANNOORKARA VILLAGE,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.


              BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN

        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 25927 of 2017 (M)
----------------------------

                                 APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1   TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
             HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P2   TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
             MINISTER FOR WELFARE OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULES
             TRIBES, KERALA.

EXHIBIT P3   TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.10.2016 FILED BEFORE THE
             DISTRICT OFFICER SCHEDULED CASTES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
             AND THE RECEIPT THEREUPON.

EXHIBIT P4   TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.05.2017 FILED BY THE
             PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND THE RECEIPT
             THEREUPON.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL.
-----------------------


                                 True copy

                                P.A. to Judge



         ANTONY DOMINIC & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
        ---------------------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C)No.25927 of 2017
       ----------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 11th day of August, 2017

                              JUDGMENT

Antony Dominic, J.

The writ petition has been filed seeking orders of police protection. According to the petitioner, he has made certain complaints against the 5th respondent and therefore the 5th respondent and his henchmen have now turned against him and have threatened not to allow him to live peacefully. He says that he has made complaints to various Authorities including the 4th respondent. Complaining that there has not been any action on the petitions filed, the writ petition is filed.

2. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.

3. A writ of mandamus for police protection can be maintained only when a petitioner has made out a serious and imminent threat to his life and property and when he is able to prove that despite complaints made in that regard there has not been any action taken by the statutory authorities. In this writ petition apart from the vague allegations made by the petitioner, W.P.(C)No.25927/2017 ..2..

there is nothing before us to think that the petitioner has made out a case of there being imminent danger to his life and property.

In such circumstances, we are not persuaded to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE skj