K.Vijayan Pillai 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 SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/20TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 12244 of 2015 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ----------------- K.VIJAYAN PILLAI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, SECRETARY, KARAVALOOR VALLATTU UDAYANKAVU DEVI KSHETHRAM TRUST, NEDUMALA, MATHRA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.T.A.JOY RESPONDENT(S) :- -----------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), KOLLAM - 691 333.
3. THE ASSITANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 333.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 333.
5. MR.ARJUNAN PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMAN PILLAI, ALUMOOTTIL VEEDU, NEDUMALA, MATHRA P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 333.
6. RAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, RATHEESH MANDIRAM, NEDUMALA MATHRA P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 333.
7. MATHRA SUNDARESAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, SURESH BHAVAN, UTHRADOM, NEDUMALA MATHRA P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 333.
8. RAJESH KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA KURUP, VIJAYA MANDIRAM, VALLATTUMATHRA P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 333. R1 TO R4 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-042015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.12244 OF 2015 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- True photocopy of the petition submitted before the 4th respondent.
Ext.P2 :- True photocopy of the complaint before the 2nd respondent.
Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL.
//True Copy// P.A. to Judge
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12244 of 2015 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April 2015
J U D G M E N T
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
The petitioner seeks police protection for the functioning of the temple and also for the office bearers of the Trust against the threat and harassment from respondents 5 to 8 and their persons. 2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Attorney.
3.
In view of the nature of order we are inclined to pass in the writ petition, there is no necessity to issue notice to private respondents.
4.
We do not find any reason to pass any order so as to afford protection, in view of the facts and circumstances stated in the writ petition and the complaints produced along with the writ petition. But the police will look into the complaint, if any filed in which, there is any trace of criminal offence being constituted or there is any apprehension of any law and order situation. With this observation, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE Jvt