AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 to grant effective police protection to lives and property from the hands of respondents 6 to 10.
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders to 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents to give effective protection to petitioners lives and properties.
Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows. The brother of the 6th respondent committed suicide. It is alleged that, as a revenge respondents 6 to 10 and their henchmen destroyed and set fire to 2nd petitioner''s house. First petitioner filed complaint.
A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 6 to 10 producing Exts.R6(a) to R6 ). Ext.R6(a) purports to be the mass petition submitted before the Chief Minister. It is their case that the brother of the 6th respondent was murdered. It is also their case that crime u/s 306 has been registered against Sri. Murali and Sri. Ani. Various allegations have been raised including that petitioners have influence with the police. It is stated in particular that the respondents have no intention to harass or commit any illegal acts towards the petitioners. On the other hand, petitioners are threatening the party respondents. It is stated that the marriage of the 6th respondent is scheduled to be held on 7.11.2010. Ext.R6(b) is the marriage invitation card. It is alleged that the petitioners along with henchmen are threatening that they will not allow the marriage to be solemnized.
Petitioners have filed reply affidavit.
We heard Dr. Kylasanath Pillai, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Biju Balakrishnan, learned Counsel for respondents 6 to 10 and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned Counsel for the party respondents would point out Ext.R6(a) in particular. He would also submit that the party respondents have no intention to cause any threat to the petitioners. We record the said submission. In fact, he would submit that in the guise of the interim order what the petitioners have done is they cut off a way. It is also alleged that the marriage of the 6th respondent may be obstructed. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that no such things have happened and the petitioners have no intention to obstruct the marriage in any manner. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that it is not correct to say that in the guise of the interim order the way has been obstructed as contended by the party respondents. We record this submission also.
The writ petition is disposed of directing that as and when the petitioners complain of any threat by the party respondents to the lives of petitioners before respondents 4 and 5, the said respondents shall look into the complaint, and, if it is found to be genuine, they shall afford protection to the lives of the petitioners as against the party respondents.