SHAMSUDHEEN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the Secretary of Thattamala Jama-Ath, a registered organisation. There are complaints against the 9th respondent. Removal of 9th respondent is sought. The General Body was scheduled to be held on 5.11.2010 as notified by the petitioner. Petitioner sought police protection before the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P1. The meeting was convened on 5.11.2010. But, since respondents 2 and 3 had not provided any safeguards, respondents 4 to 8 at the instance of the 9th respondent brought some outside antisocial elements inside the meeting hall and created a fearsome atmosphere there. The General Body is now proposed to be held on 12.11.2010. Petitioner filed representation seeking protection.

(3.) OF course, it is true that the 5th respondent is one of the plaintiffs and the petitioner at whose instance the interim injunction is granted. It is pointed out that the order is obtained after the filing of the writ petition and notice is received. Learned counsel for the party respondents points out that the suit is filed on 10.11.2010 and there are other plaintiffs apart from the 5th respondent in the suit. The fact of the matter is now there is an order of injunction passed by the civil Court for ten days. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the injunction is only against removal and meeting can go on. He would also submit that 300 members requisitioned urgent meeting and there will be law and order situation. We would not think that it will be a proper exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief.