GILBERT PRINCE Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming issue of directions to the first respondent - a police official to afford police protection to respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he had obtained Ext.P5 judgment on 19.3.2009 from a learned Single Judge of this Court. To carry out the directions in Ext.P5 within a period of eight weeks as directed, the second respondent therein, i.e. the Additional Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram had issued necessary directions to respondents 2 and 3. When respondents 2 and 3 went to the property to take necessary steps, respondents 2 and 3 were allegedly obstructed illegally by respondents 4 and 5. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with the present prayer for granting police protection to respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) WHAT has happened to the direction in Ext.P5? Was any complaint made to the Court that the direction therein which was to be complied with within eight weeks of the judgment had not been complied with ? Has any further direction has been issued by that Court ? No satisfactory answers are forthcoming to these queries. In the instant case, we note that the second respondent in Ext.P5 i.e. the Additional Tahsildar or the second and third respondents herein i.e. the Taluk Surveyor and the Village Officer have no grievance that there has been any illegal obstruction in the discharge of their duties. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no directions for police protection need be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution now at the instance of the petitioner. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed.