Kerala High Court
Tom T Joseph vs Superintendent Of Police
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/3RD PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 1956 of 2017 (T)
-------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
TOM T JOSEPH
S/O. K.T OUSEPH,
THIRUNILATHIL HOUSE,
MATTAKKARA, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SRI.P.I.GEORGEKUTTY
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001
3. K.K RAJAN
KOCHERI HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM.P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-682025
4. SFI
DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE,
BTR MANDIRAM,
THEKKAN GOPURAM,
KOTTAYAM-686001,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S STATE PRESIDENT
5. ABVP DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE
VIJAYA MANDIR,
NEAR BHARATH HOSPITAL,
KOTTAYAM-686 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
6. KSU DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE,
CONGRESS HOUSE, AIDA,
JUNCTION KOTTAYAM 686 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KOTTAYAM.
6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PALLICKATHODE POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM- 686 001
R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 1956 of 2017 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
----------------------
P1- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE PRINCIPAL TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT WITH IT'S TRANSLATION DATED 12.1.17.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
----------------------
NIL.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.1956 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2017
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
The petitioner claims to be the Chairman of Toms College of Engineering, Mattakkara, Kottayam district. According to the petitioner, at the instigation of the third respondent, students resorted to violence and caused considerable damage to the properties of the college. It was in such circumstances, he filed the writ petition seeking orders of police protection.
2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 19.1.2017, this court passed an interim order directing that protection be afforded to the college clarifying that the same shall be without prejudice to the investigation of the criminal cases if any against the petitioner.
3. We heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and also the counsel appearing for the third respondent.
W.P.(C)No.1956 of 2017 : 2 :
4. Insofar as the third respondent is concerned, he has filed a detailed counter affidavit denying all the allegations raised by the petitioner against him. Though the petitioner's essential allegation is that the third respondent had instigated the agitations in the college, in the absence of materials substantiating the case of the petitioner, we are not persuaded to accept the case against the third respondent.
5. Be that as it may, fact remains that there was agitation of students and considerable damage has also been caused to the properties of the college. As things now stand, the affiliation of the college still remains and the college is also functioning, though on the strength of an interim order obtained from this court. Therefore, functioning of the college cannot be prevented and if prevented by the respondents, that is liable to be interfered with by the police.
W.P.(C)No.1956 of 2017
: 3 :
6. In such circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition directing that in the event of any disturbance to the normal functioning of the college, it would be open to the petitioner to report the matter to the first respondent who thereupon shall provide adequate protection for the college. However, it is made clear that such protection will be extended only so long as the college has the affiliation and shall be at the cost of the petitioner and without prejudice to the right of the investigating agency to investigate the criminal cases, if any,against the petitioner.
Writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jes