Ali Ashraf v. Ansar T.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/10TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 2171 of 2015 (V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :

------------------------ V.ALI ASHARAF, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.VADAKKAN MUHAMMED, ERANAD TALUK, EDAVANNA AMSAM, PATTHIRIYAM DESAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE RESPONDENT(S) :

----------------------------

1. ANSAR T, S/O.ABU, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KASALA KUNNU, ATHIKKULAM ROAD, MANJERI-676 121, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2. SHAMSUDEEN, S/O.HUSSAN, PUNNAKKAL HOUSE, CHANTHAKKUNNU, MANJERI-676 121, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI- 676 121, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

4. MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJERI-676 121, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, S.C THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

WP(C).No. 2171 of 2015 (V) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17/12/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXT.P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 05/01/2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13/01/2015 ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT AND TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.2171 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January 2015

J U D G M E N T

Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, Municipality.

No notice is being issued to respondents 1 and 2 in view of the judgment being passed today.

2.

Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that he has been granted licence by the Municipality to run a business in a shop room. It is submitted that interference was caused by respondents 1 and 2 on 06/01/2015 and 11/1/2015 and a complaint has been filed on 13/01/2015 in that regard. 3.

The learned Government Pleader submits that after receipt of the complaint, the matter was enquired by the police and it was found that there was some altercation

between the parties on those days and there is neither any further threat nor any interference by the private respondents in the business of the petitioner. 4.

In view of the above, we do not think that an order of police protection is required in this writ petition. However, we observe that in the event any offence is committed or attempt to commit offence, it shall be open for the petitioner to file appropriate complaint to the police who shall look into it and take appropriate action. With the above observation, this writ petition is closed. (ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr