Shahul Hameed v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/8TH KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(C).No. 15021 of 2012 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :
---------------- SHAHUL HAMEED AGED 70 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER, MUKADA VEETTIL, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENTS :
-------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, (HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE , ALUVA-683 101.
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 542.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 542.
5. M.A.ALIKUNJU , AGED 58 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER, MUKADA VEETTIL, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE PIN-683 542.
6. NAJEEB, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.M.A.ALIKUNJU, MUKADA VEETTIL, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE PIN-683 542.
7. ABOOBACKER @ KOCHABU , AGED 33 YEARS S/O. ALIKUNJU, MUKADA VEETTIL, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE PIN-683 542.
R1 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.R. SYAM KUMAR. R5 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 15021 of 2012 (C) --------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.04.2012. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.06.2012 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R5(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30.12.2011 ISSUED FROM MIOT HOSPITAL, CHENNAI.
EXT.R5(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 05.03.2012 ISSUED FROM MIOT HOSPITAL, CHENNAI.
EXT.R5(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE MEDIATION ON 23.01.2012.
/TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15021 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October 2015
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking for police protection. It is alleged that respondents 5 to 7 and their men were creating continuous threat to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner sought for police protection.
2.
Learned Government Pleader submits that during the pendency of the above writ petition, no untoward incident has been reported.
Hence, we close the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the police, if there is any further cause of action.
Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE J UDGE Jvt/3.11.2015